Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Diseases of Fish Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. John Corrie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a unique moment as it is the first time that an hon. Member has twice drawn first place in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I have on this occasion chosen a much less contentious subject than on the last, but it is equally important. It is vital to the fish farming industry in Britain.
It is also interesting to note that, in a small way, history is repeating itself. I checked on the Diseases of Fish Act 1937, which my Bill proposes to amend and found that the Committee on it was chaired by Sir Charles MacAndrew, who was Member of Parliament for Bute and North Ayrshire. However, I see that times have not changed for Scottish Members of Parliament as that Bill was introduced at 11.26 pm and proceedings on it finished only seven minutes later, only three speeches having been made. Today's Second Reading will take a little longer. Another curious feature of that legislation is that it was introduced by a Minister with responsibility for pensions, not a Minister of Agriculture.
I shall give some background to my interest in fish farming. It stems from the days of the European Assembly when I was fortunate enough to be the rapporteur for fish farming. I was ably assisted by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), who I hope will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker. We drew up legislation in the agricultural committee for fish farming in Europe. The Assembly adopted it unanimously as Community guidelines for fish farming. I followed up the legislation by writing a booklet and advancing another proposal to the Council which is still lying on the table in Brussels. I hope that that will be taken up at some stage and will become European legislation.
I felt then, as I do now, that, given proper incentives, fish farming could be one of the biggest growth areas of food production in Britain. One of the major constraints on such development is the viciousness of the diseases that can affect fish of all ages and ruin a fish farmer overnight. Fish farming is not the panacea for the get-rich-quick that many people thought it might be when it started. It is a highly skilled and sensitive industry. It requires the highest standards of hygiene and health. In many cases, it requires

a substantial capital investment, which is often high-risk capital. Those who are involved in the industry must be dedicated to it.
There are three types of fish farming. First, there is intensive farming in which most disease problems arise. That is the case in other animal-intensive units. High productivity requires a high level of skilled management. Intensive fish farming can be done on the land in tanks that are made of either concrete or plastic or are mud-bottomed. Most of the problems with disease arise in the latter type. Moreover, cages in the sea can be used for salmon and cages in fresh water lochs can be used for trout.
Secondly, there is extensive fish farming. Ponds, lakes, rivers and estuaries are seeded with fish or shellfish which are harvested in reasonably controlled conditions. That practice is more common on the Continent where warm water produces faster growth rates.
Thirdly, there is ranching of fish, especially of migratory species such as salmon. The rivers are seeded, the fish go out to sea, spend part of their lives there, and return to breed in the same rivers. The theory is all very good, but the problem is that once the fish have migrated they go to areas such as Greenland where they are caught by local fishermen and therefore do not return. It is fair to say that one of the largest growth sports in Britain is rod fishing, which is within the reach of all pockets. Fish farmers are providing new stocks for rivers, ponds and lakes. It has become a large industry for both game and coarse fish.
Commercial rearing is now flourishing. It is so improved that the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Scotland is considering the possibility of establishing an agriculture technical training centre to train and retrain youngsters in the Highlands area in fish farming. It is interesting to note that those doing best in that work are from the farms—they have been used to husbandry—rather than those who left the sea and the fishing boats and who tended to be hunters of fish rather than keepers.
The industry is growing in Scotland. There are 63 companies with between 80 and 90 farm sites for trout. In 1981, 21 new sites were developed, and even more were developed in 1982. They produced nearly 2,000 tonnes of fish with a value of £4·5 million. Thirty-two companies are involved in salmon fanning, with 27 freshwater and 35 seawater sites. There is growth in that area also. During the past year they have produced 1,300 tonnes of fish at a value of £5·5 million.
As this large industry develops, more and more people are being employed. Because a great deal of salmon is being produced, its price is being held down or even reduced and is within the reach of most people's pockets. It is interesting to note that in the late 1800s or early 1900s any lease or agreement between farm staff and employers contained a provision that salmon should not be fed to the staff more than three times a week. It was one of the cheapest and easiest-to-obtain foods available in Scotland.
There are still vast areas of the countryside with good, clean, fresh water for farms, but careful planning is important to make the best use of them. It is more difficult to find sea lochs with access and shelter for salmon and where the landowner actually wants to develop a fish farm.
A large new area for expansion in the coming years will be shellfish farming. I investigated that in Malta, where they lower their seeded oysters in baskets, and also in


Italy, where they attach their small seeds to strings and hang them between poles. An enormous tonnage of shellfish can be harvested in a small area. There is a natural harvest of fish such as cockles, mussels, scallops, oysters, clams, queen scallops and Pacific oysters. There is an enormous potential for development of those around our coasts.
Also being fanned fairly extensively are eels, halibut, turbot, Dover sole, carp, shrimp, lobster and crayfish—to name only a few of the species. In my constituency, at Hunterston, the hot water that is a by-product of the nuclear power station is being used for the farming of eels, Dover sole and turbot. The warmer water gives a better growth rate.
In England, the picture on expansion is much the same. Twenty years ago there were about 20 or 30 trout farms. By 1982, there were almost 450 units producing 5,000 tonnes. There are many marine fish farms around the coast. But we must not get fish farming out of proportion. The world annual production of fish, both naturally caught and fanned, is about 72 million tonnes, of which only 4 million tonnes is farmed. So fish farming is not in competition with natural fishing methods but is complementary to them in every sense of the word, and a winner in a world where the population is increasing each year.
A number of hon. Members have written to me since the Bill was published saying that they hoped that there would be a slaughter and compensation clause. I am sorry to say that it is not possible for a Back-Bench Member to insert such a clause because it would commit the Government to expenditure. I well know the strain and worry that have been caused when diseases move close to or strike a farm. But if fish and animals are to be protected, we need legislation. As a farmer, I have survived outbreaks of both foot and mouth disease and brucellosis among stock, but, fortunately, I was insured against both and therefore survived. Expensive though it is, everyone in the fish farming industry must insure to protect his stock.
My original intention was to insert a clause on import controls. However, I have been assured by those who know about these matters that the Animal Health Act 1981 gives the Minister all the power that he needs—although the Scottish National Farmers Union is not absolutely convinced about that. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position when he replies.
Various other suggestions were made by the National Farmers Union, the water authority, the trout and salmon associations, the Irish fish farmers and country landowners associations on such matters as extraction rights, planning, protection from theft and Irish imports into Scotland. With the time scale allotted to a private Member, it is not possible to build those matters into the Bill. I must keep the Bill tight on the subject of disease control.
Another area about which I am not absolutely happy in my drafting is that, as yet, I have not managed to find a way to register shellfish farms. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, I hope that in Committee we can find a way to do that. Various families may own different rights within the same area to pick shellfish, and it is extremely difficult to designate boundaries on the seabed. But I want legislation for shellfish as well as for ordinary fish.
During the past few weeks I have had extensive talks with everybody involved—the National Farmers Union in both Scotland and England, water authorities, trout and salmon farmers, Department officials and vets. In addition, much consultation has taken place during the past year. The Government made it clear that no legislation would be possible during the coming year. It is only because I have chosen the subject that we have an opportunity to pass legislation for fish farming.
The Bill has been widely welcomed by responsible fish farmers because they realise that we must control disease. I am sorry for the farmers who already have disease on their farms. The only people who have criticised what I am trying to do are one or two farmers who do not believe that disease should be controlled. It would be disastrous to allow the diseases to run rife in Britain.
The present position with whirling disease is a typical example of what can happen. Although we have that disease in Britain, some of the more virile diseases have been kept at bay on the continent, and we hope that they stay there as a result of such legislation as I am proposing. In a way, the Bill is designed to protect the industry from itself. I am delighted that the farmers unions have given it such a warm welcome. During the past week or two I have been involved with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and I thank them for all their help and the concern that they have shown.
The Bill does three things. It amends the basic fish disease legislation, which is the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. Everything in the Bill other than registration clauses must be read in conjunction with that Act to make sense. There is a new provision on the registration of fish farms and the keeping of stock and movement records. It amends the basic shellfish diseases legislation, the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. Only clause 5 refers to shellfish. The Bill extends the scope of the 1937 Act, which apparently covers only salmon and freshwater fish. It will be extended to bring in all farmed sea fish and eels. The 1937 Act was specifically introduced to deal with a disease called furunculosis which affected salmon and trout.
The Bill gives power to serve a standstill notice—two 30-day notices—while diagnosis of notifiable diseases takes place. It takes a considerable time to diagnose the disease, so that length of time is required to play safe. Movement controls could be applied to fish, eggs or foodstuffs. The order would say which of those was to be controlled. After 60 days all controls would be lifted or a designated area order made. That changes the present situation, because the Act does not specify the number of 60-day standstill orders that can be served. The Scottish National Farmers Union is worried about the 30-day orders. That is something that can be considered in Committee.
The vital stage in the life of salmon is when they have to be moved from fresh water to salt water. Officials in Scotland have been extremely flexible in the way that they have worked with fishermen and I hope that this continues.
The other power that the Minister would have in a designated area order would be control over movements in, out of, and within the designated area. This may seem a strong power to give a Minister. With the diseases that we have in this country, perhaps we do not require it, but if the disease viral haemorrhagic septicaemia comes from the continent it is so deadly that it would wipe out our fish farming industry very quickly. It is pointless constantly to


be chasing disease. We must have authority to close down an area in order to keep it safe so that we are not trying to catch up with farms that have been declared diseased.
The 1937 Act lists several notifiable diseases and provides only for additions. That is unfair as scientists are learning more and more about fish farm diseases. Methods of diagnosis by scientists of fish diseases have improved. The Bill provides that additions and deletions can be made. This will remove the time-consuming requirement for an Order in Council. There are almost a dozen primary and secondary diseases that affect fish throughout the world. Fortunately, a number of them are not present in Great Britain.
The purpose of amending the 1937 Act is to give the fish farming industry the benefit of more effective control, along the lines of the animal health controls that have been so successful in eradicating animal diseases. Responsible fish farmers welcome the proposed protection. I am not suggesting that the industry is rife with disease and needs this sort of control, but if the industry is to grow in future some controls must be implemented.
Water authorities are covered by the 1937 Act and I do not wish to alter what they do. They have responsibilities for water other than fish farms in their area. If dead or dying fish are found in their waters, they have the power to remove them. That is tremendously important for rod fishermen who wish to carry on their sport in waters that are clean and free from disease. All the water board members to whom I have spoken have been extremely helpful. There have been numerous discussions during the past few weeks.
The industry is growing rapidly, perhaps too rapidly in many areas. It is for that reason that we must have registration within the industry. It is impossible to control disease if it is not known where the farms are which could be affected by disease. When a farm has disease and a disease order is placed upon it, it is necessary to know where the farm sold its eggs or its fish so that it is possible rapidly to follow up and take action. I stress that, although there is no test of acceptability for registration, every fish farm would be entitled to be registered. Fish diseases are highly transmittable and we must do everything in our power to stop them spreading.
Clause 5 affects shellfish. If the Bill gets a Second Reading, it will be possible to discuss what further controls can be built in to the 1937 Act. I am considering further ways of improving the Bill in that area.
The Bill will be the first step towards bringing some discipline to the industry in the way in which fish and disease problems are tackled. It is a foundation upon which the Government can build at a later date and do the other things that the industry requires. If the Bill gets a Second Reading, there is no doubt that the Government will wish to make some changes in Committee. That I accept. The Bill has had an unqualified welcome outside the House.
I remind the industry that a Back-Bench Member can do only so much. The art of politics is the possible. If in Committee too many amendments are pushed forward, we may lose the whole Bill because of lack of time. If the Bill passes into Committee today, I hope that not too many changes will be made there.

Mr. John Golding: I congratulate most warmly the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) on introducing this Bill. I

congratulate him on his choice of subject and on his luck. If I were to have his luck, on balance, I would become a professional gambler rather than a Member of Parliament.
I have no doubt that this Bill will pass into law. The hon. Member should not carry with him, when considering this Bill, his experiences on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. That was a very different Bill. The hon. Gentleman, who has produced such an excellent Bill, should welcome amendments. I do not think they will be considered in the way that amendments were considered on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. There will be an overwhelming desire on the part of Members of Parliament to make certain that this Bill gets on the statute book. He must not fear constructive comments, criticism or amendments.
I welcome the Bill from the point of view of anglers. The National Anglers Council welcomes this Bill. It would like a few improvements made. It would wish to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing it. This gives me the chance to reiterate that the Labour party, far from wanting to ban or prohibit angling, supports angling as a sport. We regard it as a legitimate pastime. This Bill will be a positive help to anglers.
The National Anglers Council has told me that angling is being taken up at the rate of six people an hour. Angling is a favourite form of occupation among small boys and adults. It is an admirable and consuming occupation for youngsters. It does, except from the point of view of bailiffs or gamekeepers, keep young boys out of trouble. We must encourage angling strongly. The additional numbers of people fishing puts great pressure on the fish. One startling statistic in England is that there are between 600,000 and 800,000 trout fishermen.
Trout fishing has ceased to be the sport of the aristocracy. It has increasingly become classless. When I was a youngster fishing the river Dee at Chester the salmon and trout fishermen were in a different social class. Those of us who were coarse fishermen would never have dreamt that we would ever had access to trout waters and fish for trout. Trout fishing was in a different category but that is not true today. The Birmingham anglers association has about 70,000 members. They are mostly skilled workmen and their families. It owns stretches of some of the finest trout rivers in the Midlands. Some are reserved for fly-fishing only. There are waters on which permits can be obtained to fish for salmon. The image of trout fishing that some of my hon. Friends used to have disappeared a long time ago. Trout fishing is growing in popularity among working people.
I have noticed that many good, skilled coarse fishermen in the Midlands, who are deprived of fishing by the close season between March and June, have taken to fishing for trout in the coarse fishing close season.
The popularity of trout fishing increases and this brings great pressure on the trout. Recently I visited Japan on parliamentary business. On a public holiday I went fishing from Tokyo. I was surprised to see the Japanese style of fishing. I was taken by union officials and one small boy into the mountains to fish for trout. I found the Japanese fishermen shoulder to shoulder with their poles. I had to walk half a mile to find an empty space on the river. It was a beautiful, small mountain stream. I started to fish with a pole at 8 o'clock in the morning. My Japanese trade union colleagues kept coming to me and saying "Don't worry. Do not be impatient that you have not caught a fish. At 9 o'clock you will catch a fish."
I thought that Confucius would appear at 9 o'clock. At 9 o'clock precisely a van drew up alongside me on the river bank. A Japanese gentleman jumped out of the van and poured two buckets of fish around my feet. From 9 o'clock until 15 minutes to 12 I steadily caught trout. However, at 15 minutes to 12 one of the Japanese union officials said, "Now we must go to eat." I asked whether the conditions had become too bright, whether the wind had changed direction or whether the temperature had dropped too much. He replied "No. We have now caught all the fish."
I hope that in Britain we do not reach that stage of give and take. However, many of our fisheries have to rely on fish that have been reared artificially and then put into our rivers, lakes and pools. Angling is entirely dependent on the rearing of fish. It is important, especially for trout fishermen on still waters, that there be an unrestricted supply.
None of us wants to fish for diseased fish and it is important that trout be available to the fisheries at a reasonable cost. I know that last year whirling disease put great pressure on those providing still-water angling. In my own locality there happens to be a generous farmer who stocks his two pools and charges only £4 for the day and £2 for an evening. He found conditions difficult—all credit to him because he stuck to his prices—when the price of fish to him shot up because of whirling disease. We must take into account the cost to the fisheries of restocking. Disease makes life extremely difficult for them.
Many hazards face migratory fish and I shall not misuse this opportunity to harangue the Minister on acid rain, pollution and netting. I am sure that he will be grateful for that. He knows that there are many hazards facing our natural fish and that we should not add to them.
On 5 April 1976 I spoke in the House on the threat from diseases following an article by Mr. Brian Clarke in the Sunday Times. I drew attention to his warning that we would have increasing problems unless action was taken. I acknowledge that that warning was to a Labour Government. It is vital that we take action now to ensure the constant and, I hope, cheap supply of trout and other fish to fisheries. It is essential, too, that we get powers to ensure that we do not import the fish diseases that are queuing up, as Mr. Clarke said, in other parts of Europe to come into Britain.
It is also essential to ensure that, when there are outbreaks of diseases on fish farms and elsewhere, we have adequate powers to stop those diseases being transmitted through our rivers. We must localise the outbreaks of disease. Some of the diseases are transmittable. They have an effect not only on trout but on roach and other fish, for which coarse fishermen in the Midlands, Yorkshire and other areas are so anxious to fish.
Anglers are delighted that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire has chosen to bring this subject before the House. The Bill can perform a very great service. The National Anglers Council tells me that it has only two quibbles. First, it says that it would like registration irrespective of whether there are outbreaks of disease.

Sir Marcus Kimball: Hear, hear.

Mr. Golding: It says that it does not make sense to be talking about registers only when there are outbreaks of

disease. It suggests that the straightforward step be taken of initiating a register of fish farms. It does not believe that legitimate fish farmers will object if their names are put on a list and they become registered. After all, registration could help them. A register of fish farmers could almost be a trade directory. I do not think that the request is unreasonable.
The council's second request is perhaps more difficult and more debatable. It proposes that water authorities be given authority to inspect at all times, irrespective of whether there be the threat of disease or an indication that disease exists.
It is said that that would be a preventative measure. Water authority inspectors on routine visits could identify the beginnings of an outbreak of disease. It is argued that that would be helpful for the fish farmer as well. I put that idea to the Minister, who will be influential during proceedings on the Bill, and to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, although I realise that the introduction of additional inspection rights raises many important questions that need detailed discussion with those who will be inspected.

Mr. Corrie: All fish farmers will be obliged to be on the register, not just those where there is disease. That will cover the hon. Gentleman's first point.

Mr. Golding: It is my lucky morning as well. It is not often that one gets an assurance as quickly as that. It is probably better to deal with Back Benchers than Ministers on such matters. The National Anglers Council will be delighted. Perhaps we can discuss access in Committee.
I wish the Bill well. As I have said, I am confident that it will reach the statute book. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is to be commended for it and anglers everywhere will thank him.

Sir Marcus Kimball: The House will have appreciated the description given by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) of a Japanese put-and-take fishery. I agree that the one hope for the expansion of British fishing sports is the further development of the put-and-take fisheries, which the Bill will help enormously. However, as he said, I hope that Britain will not reach the stage reached in Japan. I shall resist the temptation to follow the hon. Gentleman into a discussion as to the best types of fish for such fishing. The rainbow trout can be put out one day and caught the next. The brown trout will sulk for 10 days before it can be caught. A good spread can be achieved by using a variety of species in that way.
I must declare an interest because I am chairman of a district fishery board and a managing partner of a commercial salmon fishery off the north coast of Scotland. Therefore, I have had some experience with the problems. It is the impact of disease alone that prevented me from using the green bag behind your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for its proper purpose. Looking at today's Order Paper, and seeing the Diseases of Fish Bill first and the Salmon Fisheries Protection (Scotland) Bill sixth, I thought that this was an appropriate day for slipping a salmon into the green bag behind your Chair. Whether Mr. Speaker would have demanded it as his right or whether you as the Deputy Speaker whose eye I caught would have had it would have been a matter for you and Mr. Speaker


to resolve through the usual channels behind the Chair. It is the impact of the ulcerative dermal necrosis fish disease that has made that impossible.
We are now in the second five-year cycle of the impact of UDN which, as the House knows, broke out in Britain at the turn of the century, when it had a disastrous impact on Scottish fishing. However, it cleared up within two years because there was not the high nitrogen content caused by the run-off of fertilisers into our rivers. It is significant that UDN has cleared up in the highland rivers but not in lowland rivers such as the river Tweed where there is a high run-off of nitrogenous fertilisers.
Not only fish diseases but their contributory factors must be identified. One of the major contributory factors is the effect of the change in the water supply in many of our rivers caused first by water extraction, and secondly by the damaging work of the Forestry Commission which has indirectly contributed to the spread of fish disease in Britain.
Hon. Members will know that the rainfall run-off on bracken, heather and moorland is about 90 per cent. of all the rain that falls on an acre of land. Plant it with trees and the run-off is reduced to 20 per cent. In the planting of those trees, the acidity of the run-off is increased because the Forestry Commission insists on ploughing up the peat and exposing vast areas. That increases the acidity of our rivers and the amount of filth and peat suspended in them. That in turn makes our fish more liable to disease. The time is coming when it will be no good spending taxpayers' money on planting upland acres with trees, thus destroying some of the assets which the rest of the community wishes to enjoy.
It is also important that we should realise the disease risk that is now associated with illegal netting. If one visited Billingsgate market after an all-night sitting in July, as I did a year ago, one would find that two thirds of the salmon there has been illegally caught. Illegal catching exposes fish to further disease risks. The damage that hang nets do to fish creates a major risk of disease and a risk of furunculosis in our rivers.
Catching fish in hang nets means that the wretched fish gets its head caught in the net by the gills. Many fall out of the net dead and a large percentage escape. They can be found in the rivers, recognisable by the marks around their heads and shoulders, with the beginnings of furunculosis, which is extremely contagious. The fish that are taken out of the hang nets by the fishermen end up in our markets. It is illegal to set the leader to the bag net as a hang net. The continuance of this practice is extremely damaging to the fish population. Salmon can stand being culled by anglers and the normal catch of net fishermen provided that those nets are used in the traditional way and with traditional materials. Such fishing has been going on for more than 100 years. In such cases there is no risk of disease and no harm to the salmon stocks.
I would probably be ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I said too much about the damage caused by the seal population. When salmon fishing was good in Britain the grey seal population around our coasts was 28,000 and was maintained at that figure. Today, it has exploded to 60,000. One can only hope that they will get some fell disease which will reduce their fertility, and hence their numbers, before they eradicate our fish stocks. How does one know when fish start running? When people say that one should go down to fish the river because the fish have started to run, they have not seen the fish but the

seals following the fish around the coast and in the estuary. That is where the harm is being done. My fishery board still manages to kill a large number of seals in order to protect the salmon stocks, and other fishery boards should follow that example and cull seals around our coasts. The sea mammal research unit at Cambridge would say that 3,000 grey seals should be culled every year for the next 10 years between the north and the Aberdeen coasts of Scotland. That always used to be done by the fishermen. River boards must do it in the near future.
Disease, water extraction, the actions of the Forestry Commission, illegal netting and the predation of the exploding seal population are harming our fish. We have seen the harm that UDN has done to our salmon fisheries. It is essential to give powers to district fishery boards to object to the establishment of a new fish farm in their areas. On Report, I shall attempt, with the help of skilled parliamentary draftsmen, to move an amendment to that effect. I think that it would be possible—although I should like the Minister's guidance—to use clause 5. We could then allow district fishery boards in Scotland to apply for the whole of an estuary to be designated as an area free of fish farms.
Many of us dread the idea that some keen young chap, without any knowledge, will try to start a fish farm in a remote part of the country and that he will straight away import diseases into that fishery board area that are not there at present. Indeed, UDN came to Great Britain because diseased rainbow trout were irresponsibly released into the Blackwater estuary in southern Ireland. That started the problem in this country. It could easily happen again. However, the district fishery boards in Scotland know their areas. My right hon. Friend the Minister will argue that not all district fishery boards are active. However, the more responsibilities they are given, the greater the incentive for areas—particularly those on the west coast of Scotland, where district fishery boards are inactive—to use their existing powers.
After a general election, the Government might be tempted to deal with salmon by grouping the rivers together, increasing the size of the district fishery boards and placing the administration of local fisheries in the hands of a civil servant, who will merely draw a nice salary and increase bureaucracy. That would not be the right way to proceed. It would not be any good for our salmon fisheries. Subject to trying to give some say to district fishery boards, I hope that the Bill will make speedy progress on to the statute book.
There is quite a problem about moving fish and fish in hatcheries. Two years ago, people were prepared to say that they would not buy stock from a hatchery because it was infected. Those hatcheries that could not sell to district fishery boards so that fish could be added to the wild are quite happy to sell their stock to be fanned in cages in the estuaries of those very rivers to which they were unable to sell stock. There has been a general relaxation because of the pressure resulting from increased numbers of hatcheries.
I sincerely hope that this Bill and the Salmon Fisheries Protection (Scotland) Bill will at least go some way towards improving, in particular, salmon fishing around the coasts of Great Britain.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I wish to make a brief speech, as a sponsor of the Bill, and congratulate


the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) on introducing it. I apologise to him for having missed a good part of his speech. However, I am not so sure about congratulating him on his luck in coming so high up in the ballot a second time. That has happened to me and I am beginning to wonder whether I was wise to have another go after my earlier experience. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire will probably agree that one discovers that the world is amazingly full of free advice. It is exceedingly difficult to know what to do on such occasions.
Therefore, it is appropriate that the hon. Member should have used his good fortune to introduce a Bill that is both timely and essential. Much time has passed since the enactment of the 1937 Bill and there has been a tremendous expansion in fish farming. Indeed, legislation may now be overdue. For a long time, we have known about the outbreaks of disease that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) has just mentioned. Given the expansion of the fish farming industry and the fact that there are fewer wild fish, that trend will continue. Therefore, sooner or later, regulations must be laid to look after the industry.
I do not intend to go into the Bill in detail. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire confirmed to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that the Bill intended to register all fish farms. That is not a very onerous imposition on the industry. Indeed, it is due. Keeping records about fish, eggs and food stuffs is essential. It is a good idea to make them available to inspectors on the outbreak of disease and it is wise to include that provision from the word "Go".
No one should have any apprehension about the Bill reaching the statute book. I imagine that the Government will give such a Bill an enthusiastic welcome and I wish it the best of good fortune on its way into law.

Mr. David Myles: I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution. I shall not try to match the obvious angling enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) or the wealth of experience and knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball). However, I join them and the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) on being first in the ballot for a second time. It is amazing that two Members of Parliament from the west of Scotland should manage to achieve that. It is often said that there is something fey about people from such areas, and perhaps there is some truth in that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire on his wisdom in choosing this subject, as the Bill is both timeous and necessary. It would appear this time that it is almost universally popular. Matters have moved forward since 1937. Fish farming is developing apace and we need legislation to control diseases and to register those who practise fish farming or the intensive farming of fish. Fish farming is the first move towards domesticating fish. It can be said that fishermen are the last real hunters. Fish farming represents the beginning of the domestication of the production and supply of fish for the housewife's table.
Therefore, legislation to control disease is all the more necessary when there are intensive production methods. Any suggestions or amendments that are made will no doubt prove to be useful and will be welcome. I congratulate Stirling university and Professor Roberts on setting up an institute of aquaculture. It is almost unique and people all over the world look to it for advice and information on fish diseases, the management of fish stocks and all the other subjects associated with fishing and fish. Stirling university is making a tremendously valuable contribution and deserves our congratulations.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough talking about fish farming producing stocks for rivers and lakes—or lochs as I would call them—because that is a valuable way in which to regenerate stocks and to encourage the wonderfully relaxing sport of angling. Although I have lived all my life in an area famed for its angling, I have not done much. Perhaps that is a sign that those who have the opportunity to fish do not indulge in the sport very much, but that others who live in urban areas cannot get enough angling. I often have to climb up and down river banks to rescue sheep, so I am not too keen on doing it to catch fish.
This Bill provides the first real control of fish farming. I congratulate the Scottish NFU on setting up a fish farming sub-committee, which has done much work to stimulate the new venture. I, too, support the Bill.

Mr. Matthew Parris: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), not only on his good fortune in coming high enough in the ballot to be able to present his Bill, but on the skill and clarity with which he presented it. Although I have the honour and the pleasure to be president of the Matlock angling club, I am no angler and I have learnt much this morning. My hon. Friend has persuaded me both of the purposes of his Bill and that it is an effective vehicle for those purposes.
I wish to raise one problem with my hon. Friend and with my right hon. Friend the Minister, which my hon. Friend was honest enough to mention in his explanation of the Bill. That is the problem of compensation. One of my constituents, Mr. Leney, is a trout farmer. He is not a Johnny-come-lately to the business. He has been in business in Mercaston for 25 years and both he and his business have a high reputation in the area. Recently, whirling disease was identified on his farm and he has been told that he must drain all 40 of his ponds, disinfect them and destroy all his stock. That probably means the end of his business because he does not have the capital to restock. The disease appeared on his farm through no fault of his, and it seems a little hard that no compensation is available to him. The Bill extends the Government's powers over movements in and out of fish farms. To that extent, it could make the need for compensation more acute. The Bill says nothing about compensation, but that does not prevent the Government from offering to help later. If we go as far as the Bill suggests that we should, the need for compensation might be greater.
I can view the matter from the other side, as president of the Matlock angling club, because I go through the accounts of the club every year. The members have a responsible attitude towards their job and they do as much restocking as they can afford. The cost of restocking


fluctuates wildly with the cost of stock, and it is difficult for such a club to know in advance what its costs will be. The fluctuation in the price of fish is in many cases a consequence of the identification of diseases, of which whirling disease is one example. If compensation were available to fish farmers, we would not have the same fluctuation in the price of stock.
If all farmers suffered equally from diseases, every farmer could compensate for the cost of destroying infected fish by raising prices. However, whirling disease strikes unfairly and it can destroy an entire business. For that reason, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can say something about the Government's hopes for compensation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire has certainly persuaded me of the need for his Bill and I shall not obstruct it. I wish it a safe passage through Committee and on to the statute book.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: As a Member who represents one of the largest fishing constituencies in Britain, I am delighted to take part in this debate on the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), supported ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles), by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), who is the Opposition spokesman on fishing, here this morning and I hope that he will take part in the debate, because so far the Bill has received all-party support.
I welcome the Bill as a move to update the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. I welcome the presence on the Government Front Bench of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who deals with fisheries matters at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and who has a wide knowledge of such issues. I am sure that he will give the Bill a warm welcome because of the necessity to update the 1937 Act.
When the 1937 Act was drawn up, it was not envisaged that fish farming would reach the stage that it has today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire said, there are now more than 450 fish farms in Great Britain, a goodly number of which are in Scotland. The farms cover a wide range of species including trout, carp, crayfish, salmon, eels turbot, sea bass, sea bream and coarse fish. The fish are farmed in rivers, lakes, ponds, tanks and large suspended cages using both fresh water and sea water at ambient temperatures or warmed. That shows that those who have entered the fish farming industry have taken careful precautions to ensure that there are no diseases during spawning. It means that in Britain we can expect never to have the diseases that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball).
The Bill seeks mainly to tighten controls over the movement of fish and shellfish where there is an occurrence or risk of the disease. The problem at present is that the scope of the 1937 Act is limited to salmon and freshwater fish. The Bill, if enacted, will extend the scope to cover farmed sea fish and eels in addition to introducing new powers with regard to the registration of fish farms and the keeping of records.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough mentioned at some length the serious effects of fish diseases which, although they cause concern but are quite common in some European countries, are virtually unknown in Britain. I shall not endeavour to cover that ground again, except to say, as my hon. Friends have said, that if they became established in Britain the consequences for fish farming and for anglers, to whom reference was made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, would be catastrophic.
The Bill, through the powers it will place in the Minister's hands, will ensure that every opportunity is taken to guarantee, so far as possible, that none of the diseases will become active in Britain. It is vital that the powers are granted to the Minister as the economic growth of fish farming in terms of food production will go a long way to make up for the shortages that are caused at present by the decline in landings of the traditional species of cod, haddock, Dover sole and other like species. The issue is well known to hon. Members because of the number of debates we have been forced to have on fish conservation and the lack of quotas for fishermen.
It seems unusual to think of farming being able to make up for shortfalls in normal fish catches, but when one considers fish farming for the first time that misconception must be recognised and the commercial possibilities for the farmers, and also for the fishermen who wish to take up fish farming, must be seen in perspective. It is possible that, with the concentration on the more highly priced species, the value of the marine fish farm harvest may reach 20 per cent. of the value of the fleet's catch. That would be a substantial contribution to lessening the effects of the loss of fish in British waters over the past few years. That is at least a target at which to aim and is another reason why the diseases which can be found in fish farming must be identified, to the extent that the Minister has power to place a control on any area where they may have become apparent.
Another major area of control not covered by the Bill, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) is importation. Although there are certain powers under section 10 of the Animal Health Act 1981, there is some confusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire might consider in Committee. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will wish to comment on that.
There are a number of other factors that are not clearly laid down in the Bill and that will need to be considered in Committee. Clause 6 requires the Minister to have fish farms registered only if
 it appears to the Minister necessary to do so for the purpose of obtaining information about fish farms and fish farming with a view to preventing the spread of disease among fish.
It is felt that a nationwide registration is necessary and that that could be carried out by the water authorities, or the environmental health authorities or, in Scotland, the district salmon or fishery boards. It is not adequate merely to have records maintained so that the Minister can inspect them. We must ensure that registration of the fish farms is properly done. In the case of sea fishing all the boats are registered and identifiable. The same should be done for fish farms to prevent cowboys from entering the industry and bringing in disease, with catastrophic effects.
There is no requirement in clause 6 to keep records, although records are required to be kept as part of the


registration process. It would seem that if we are properly to keep fish diseases under control, full and accurate records should be kept of the movement of fish, eggs and foodstuffs in and out of fish farms, and that the records should be available for official examination. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme pointed out, the official examination could be carried out by the inspectorate.
Another matter that should be considered in Committee is the transportation of dead fish. Neither the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 nor the Bill deals with the risks involved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to cover that matter before the Bill returns for its Third Reading.
Periodic checks by the inspectors should also be included in the Bill. It is not sufficient that an inspector should come only once a year or possibly not at all to particular waters. All waters where fish farming is carried out should be inspected regularly. There should also be compensation for slaughter and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West, a consolidating measure is required in the Bill that would take account of any improvements to the system of disease control that cannot be dealt with by the Bill.
An additional advantage of the Bill is that it will update the 1937 Act, which has failed to control the introduction and spread of diseases. The Bill also covers all the requirements that are necessary now in freshwater and marine aquaculture and updates the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff about the efforts made by Stirling university, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association to ensure that fish diseases are placed under control. The study has enabled us to identify the various diseases likely to be encountered by anyone operating a fish farm and has provided advice.
Clause 5 is the only part of the Bill that relates to shellfish. It is an amendment to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. Under present legislation the Minister has powers only to prevent the deposit of shellfish into an area designated as infected. Clause 5 will extend the powers to the prohibition or licensing of the removal of the shellfish.
I fully support the comments of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme about anglers. Angling today is not the sport of the rich but the hobby and sport of all classes. Over the past few years I have received many recommendations from anglers about the need for control and the need to ensure that the waters are pure and disease-free. The cost of angling—even when the waters are controlled by local authorities, in which case the annual licence is perhaps not so expensive—for the ordinary person who wants to enjoy his rod fishing is prohibitive. If there are no fish in the river the angler's objective is negatived. We want to ensure that the waters are pure and that there will be sufficient fish for the anglers.
In the past few years anglers have been asking for some form of control of the waters. The Minister will be aware of the representations to him by anglers. We do not do enough for them. The Bill deals with river diseases and another Bill on today's Order Paper deals with salmon fishing. I hope that that, too, has a safe passage because

we want to encourage people to take up sports such as angling, particularly since there is talk of reducing the retirement age.
I never have time to do any angling, but people say that there is no greater sport. Apparently there is nothing better than standing with a rod in one's hand and nothing else on one's mind except the possible jerk on the end of the line signalling a catch.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I hope that the Minister will note my hon. Friend's valuable argument against the introduction of rod licences in Scotland. It is no good charging people for a licence if they do not have the right to fish. It is no good charging for a licence unless the money is used to improve the waters, but there is no machinery for that. I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's strong argument against the introduction of rod licensing in Scotland.

Mr. McQuarrie: That is one of the most important arguments that I wish to put across. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has reinforced my argument. I hope that the Minister will take it on board. Many representations about rod licensing have been made. Anglers fear that the Government, not in their wisdom, intend to increase the cost of the rod licence. I hope that that fear can be removed by the Minister, if not today in the not too distant future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, there is no point in having the right to fish if there are no fish.

Mr. Golding: Some of us who go fishing never catch anything, so the hon. Gentleman's argument is irrelevant in that respect. However, the majority of sane people believe that it is better for fish to be in the water when they go fishing.

Mr. McQuarrie: I thought that all anglers were sane. I have not yet met any who were not.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire on introducing the Bill. I hope that it will receive its Second Reading today, move to its Committee stage and return to the floor of the House amended. As hon. Members have said, some alterations are required. The Bill is non-controversial. Perhaps not much time will be left for it, in the light of another event that might take place soon. I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book in time so that the fish farming industry can benefit from it. The measure will be of benefit to all who work in the fish farming industry and all who enjoy angling. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I add my congratulations from the Opposition Front Bench to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie). It seems less than six years ago—but I fear that it is at least that—since the Corrie report on fish farming was presented to the European assembly. I had the honour to be the chairman of the fisheries committee and to help the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire put the report to the assembly. I can speak of his devotion to the fish farming cause over many years. The whole country is in his debt for what he has done in the past and will be in his debt even more when this excellent Bill reaches the statute book.
If I develop criticisms I do not intend them to be directed against the hon. Member. Problems arise in connection with the Bill. Clause 5 deals with shellfish and


I am disturbed at the current position of bonamia in oysters. I wonder whether the provisions are sufficient and whether, even with clause 5, they will be sufficient to give the Minister the neccessary powers in relation to shellfish. I fear the damage that could be done by the spread of the disease from French oyster beds to the east coast of Britain, even if clause 5 existed. I doubt whether its provisions are sufficient. In Committee I shall, with other hon. Members with similar views, seek ways of strengthening the Bill in relation to shellfish.
Another worry is whether we have sufficient controls over the importation of live shellfish, swimming fish and fish eggs. I understand that the power affects only those species, which are not native to England or Wales, which might harm freshwater fish, shellfish or salmon, but that it does not cover species that are native to this country. The legislation inhibits the importation of non-native species, but the importation of diseased salmon or trout that are not native to Britain may not be controlled. I might have been wrongly advised about that. I understand that a similar problem arises under the Import of Live Fish (Scotland) Act 1978. I should like the Minister and the Committee to examine the problem.
I understand why the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, but I regret that it does not. I want to be absolutely certain, as does the Scottish National Farmers Union, that no heavy risks face Scottish fish farmers arising from the importation of disease from Northern Ireland because of inadequate control over the movement of diseased fish stocks from Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there is less stringent fish disease control and no registration of fish farms. There is not as much effective control as there will be after the Bill is put on the statute book. Is there any risk from fish that is imported from Northern Ireland? The legislation covering the import of live fish does not include any differential between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there may be a risk.

Mr. McQuarrie: One of the problems that worries me is not so much the movement of live fish as the movement of dead fish, for example from Larne to Stranraer, which is a short sea passage. That is one of the matters that we must consider in Committee, to ensure that, if there is to be any movement of fish under the Diseases of Fish Act, dead fish as well as live fish are taken into account.

Mr. Hughes: We must take into account the Larne to Stranraer route, and the movement of dead fish. I agree that we must look at the matter carefully in Committee. There is no risk that by examining the details we shall delay the desired passage of the Bill to the statute book. We shall want to look at those matters.
I support the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and others with regard to compensation. I comprehend fully why it is not possible in a private Member's Bill to commit Government money on such an open-ended basis.
I should like to ask the Minister whether, under current legislation via a statutory instrument, he has the power to provide compensation when fish are destroyed at his insistence. Would a new Bill in Government time be required or could it be done through a statutory instrument after the Bill has gone on the statute book? What powers does the Minister have?
This is a minor point and it may be simply a matter of definition. Do I take it that throughout the Bill the word

"Minister" means the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and Wales? Will there, therefore, be two registers, one for Scotland and one for England and Wales or will just one Minister be responsible, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? I assume that both Ministers are meant, but not the Secretary of State for Wales, and that the present division of agricultural responsibility will be maintained. I should be grateful if the Minister could make that absolutely clear.
I am grateful, and I think that the whole House is, for this opportunity to improve, bring up to date and remedy the defects in the present law on fish diseases. I wish the Bill every success in Committee. I assure the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire that the Opposition will do everything in their power to improve the Bill. I wish it godspeed to the statute book.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I join my hon. Friends and Opposition Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie), not only on his success in coming top of the ballot but on his discernment in choosing this subject for his Bill. He has had much good fortune in coming top of the ballot on two relatively recent occasions. As he said, coming top of the ballot on two occasions at all is very good fortune. I hope that in the passage of this Bill he will experience slightly less turbulent waters than he did on his previous Bill. The welcome that his Bill has rightly received from both sides of the House not only confirms that my hon. Friend was right to choose this subject for the Bill, but bodes extremely well for its successful passage through the House and the other place.
I am conscious of the interest that has been evoked by my hon. Friend's proposals throughout the country among all those who have the widest interests of fishing in mind. The Government welcome the Bill. My hon. Friend has taken an opportunity that the Government might like to have taken if they had had more time in their legislative programme.
As the House knows, my Department some time ago issued a consultative paper on a review of inland and coastal fisheries in England and Wales. One of the sections in that paper related specifically to fish farming, and another was about fish diseases. We have had wide-ranging consultations on the paper. The issue of that paper is proof of the Government's interest in and commitment to dealing constructively and sensibly with these important matters. The consultations have been completed, but consideration of them is not yet complete. I am delighted that, in the period between our receiving consultations and coming to a decision, my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to seek to introduce legislation on fish diseases.
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has sought my advice on the drafting of the Bill, and that of my Department and of other Departments with responsibility for these matters. I assure my hon. Friend and the House of the active support of myself and the Government in making the improvements that may be necessary to the Bill when it is considered in Committee. I assure him that I shall give any help that I can to ensure that the Bill goes on to the statute book.
I have followed closely the consultations that my hon. Friend has had with all the interests throughout the country. I can confirm from the contacts that I have had that the Bill is broadly welcomed and there is considerable agreement among all those who have an interest in the matter. Further clarification, amendment and addition may be necessary on some points. I hope that all those who have an interest in the subject will not sit back during the next few weeks. The Bill was published only last week, but its intentions have been clear for some time. Therefore, I hope that before the Committee stage all those who have an interest in the Bill will submit their points of view to my hon. Friend so that they may be considered fully in Committee. The Committee offers us the best opportunity to deal with detailed matters. It is in Committee that we should try to deal with any points of difficulty or points about which there is anxiety outside the House.
I am glad that the Bill has been welcomed by both the National Farmers Union and the Scottish National Farmers Union. In recent years both those bodies have taken an active interest in fish farming.
When introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire mentioned the tremendous economic importance of fish farming. It is not a new development except on its present scale. The Government have shown their interest. We introduced one or two measures in the Fisheries Bill that was before the House two years ago. That Act gave some financial help to the industry, with derating and so on. We have given proof of our confidence and belief in the future of fish farming and the important part that it has to play in the economy. For that reason, I welcome the fact that the farmers unions have taken the initiative in co-ordinating representations and anything else necessary for the development of the industry. It is significant that they welcome the Bill.
Fish farming is important, although fishing in the high seas will still remain the major source of fish for food in this country and elsewhere. In Japan fish farming has been developed on a large scale. I had the good fortune during the autumn last year to visit Norway where there have been important developments in salmon farming. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) mentioned Stirling university, and I agree with what he said. We in this country have a good record in research and innovation in fish farming. I reflected upon that when I visited Norway, because I discovered there that a great deal of the basic development work had been done in this country, although major commercial development had been done by others. I was interested in how freely tribute was paid to the basic research work done by this country, and I basked in the glory of those tributes. I wished that we had developed commercially on the same scale as they had. A great deal of good work has been done on fish farming by the research and back-up teams in Stirling university and by Government scientists in laboratories and fisheries departments. We have given the industry a sound base on which to build for the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire mentioned, Scotland and the Highlands and Islands are important. Fish farming is an industry which can be of great importance regionally. I should like to pay tribute to the great initiative shown by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in the development of fish

farming. By developing in such areas, one is using natural resources. I believe that such natural developments have greater staying power for the future. Fish farming will be economically important for consumers and for regional policy and development. It is an industry that the Government want to support.
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for confirming the support of the National Anglers Council. The wide support that this Bill has received from many different bodies is important. Anglers have a direct interest in the Bill. I welcome the positive and constructive remarks made about the Bill by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I hope that in Committee he will put forward the angling point of view on any points that he feels are important which would improve the Bill, which is an important one for anglers.
The Bill deals with fish diseases more than anything else. My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire said that the development of intensive methods of husbandry which fish farming involves has made disease significant. The appearance of serious diseases brought in from outside the country is important. The Bill seeks to amend the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. There has been increasing anxiety about fish diseases for a long time. The consultative paper shows clearly that legislation relating to fish diseases was becoming outdated in the face of the various developments that have taken place. We shall be dealing with another aspect of animal disease legislation in the House next week. It has tended to keep more or less in step with the various developments that have taken place in agriculture. I do not believe that I put it too highly when I say that the Bill is a milestone in dealing with fish diseases and keeping legislation in step with development.
One has only to consider diseases such as whirling, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) referred, to realise how desperately serious it is, not just for the industry, but, as shown by correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West and others have had, to individuals who have the misfortune to be struck by that disease. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) referred to bonamia, the oyster disease, and I shall refer to it again later. All these developments illustrate the importance of the action that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is taking by introducing the Bill.
I shall deal with the Bill under two general headings. First, I shall deal with some of the points raised about what is in the Bill, and then I shall deal with some of the points raised about matters which are not in the Bill and which can be discussed in more detail in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire raised the question of standstill notices. I treat this matter as one of considerable importance. I know that in the short time since publication of the Bill my hon. Friend has received representations on the matter. The Scottish National Farmers Union in particular is concerned about it. I agree with my hon. Friend that the present notice is inadequate to collect material and to carry out the laboratory examinations and tests. It is unsatisfactory to have a period for notices not related to the time necessary to carry out the tests. I believe that the 60-day period, broadly speaking, is right. It should be adequate, but if evidence to the contrary emerges during the Committee stage I shall be happy, as I am sure my hon. Friend will


be, to consider it. But, knowing of the representations, I have considered the matter and I think that my hon. Friend is right about the period.
I am equally aware—my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) referred to this—in relation to the standstill period that at certain times of the year the release of salmon smolts can be affected. Fisheries departments have endeavoured to be flexibile. They realise that we are dealing with a practical situation. I hope that further difficulties will not arise though extension of the period.
I believe that the power in the Bill to enable the list of diseases to be amended by order is one of the most welcome proposals. We are dealing with a developing situation. In the absence of such powers, with my responsibilities for these matters, a worry that I have always had is that a new disease would emerge and I would find myself unable, without going through a complicated procedure, to take the necessary steps to deal with it.
The provision will be flexible in two directions, not only in affording the ability to add new diseases to the list that may become a threat but in removing diseases from the list where other methods have been found to control them, where they are no longer a threat or where they were thought to be a threat but were not. A flexible approach to the question of disease is immensely important.
As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gainsborough said, UDN was covered by the 1937 Act. I very much welcome the flexibility of the Bill. Speed is of the greatest importance if we are to deal effectively with the dangers of the spread of disease. If the Bill becomes law, the Government will ensure that our scientists keep under review the list of diseases to make sure that it is appropriate at all times.
The major development in the Bill which I welcome most of all is the extension of the legislation to shellfish. I have been anxious about the limitations of my powers. The bonamia outbreak has again made me conscious of this fact. The extension to shellfish is proper and necessary.
As with fish farming generally, this is a development, particularly in our coastal waters, where there is considerable scope for development. It is taking place on a considerable scale all round the coasts of the United Kingdom. It is unfair to those who are prepared to take the risks and to invest not to have the protection that we have tried to give to other aspects of fish farming. The provisions in the Bill complement the existing controls, but the existing controls on shellfish can be related only to the deposit of shellfish. That is the limitation from which I suffer. If one takes together the new powers proposed and those that I have already, there should be much greater and effective control over the spread of shellfish disease.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire intervened on the general question of registration in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under Lyme. I confirm that if we obtain this enabling power, as I hope we do, it will be the Government's intention to make an order establishing a scheme of registration for fish farmers as soon as possible after the Act comes into force. If stock movement records are not kept, we cannot hope to trace the movement of fish and consequently keep one step ahead of the disease, which is the objective in all disease control, although it is not always achieved.
All fish farmers should be able to register and will be on the register, so we should at least be working from a base of knowledge. I am anxious that at present, if I have to take action with the more limited powers available to me, there is a danger of doing so without knowing what movements may have taken place before the action is taken and what the consequences may be.

Sir Marcus Kimball: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the provision does not apply just to fish farms, which one thinks of in terms of somebody producing the item which is eventually slaughtered, but covers hatcheries as well?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, indeed it does. That is one of the most important areas. There is less risk of disease spreading from farms producing simply for the table market. The risk can be greatest particularly in the breeding farms.
I return to shellfish. I share the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire that so far it has not proved possible legally to achieve a proper definition of shellfish farms for the purposes of registration. It is strictly a legal problem of definition. Great problems arise when dealing with shellfish in coastal waters where there are public rights and so on. It makes definition for registration much more difficult. But between now and the Committee stage—we do not have long to wait—I promise my hon. Friend every assistance that I can give him to get the legal definition right. The Government would welcome seeing the registration provisions extended to shellfish.
I should like to deal with one other point of clarification. The hon. Member for Durham asked about the use of the word "Minister". I am advised that it includes the Secretary of State. I am not a lawyer and do not understand all the niceties of these things, but I am told that the responsibilities for the administration will be, as they are at present, in England with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in Wales with the Secretary of State for Wales and in Scotland with the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman can produce evidence that that is not right, I shall be happy to look at it, but on the best legal advice available to me I am told that that is correct.

Mr. Mark Hughes: The first half of the Bill amends the Diseases of Fish Act 1937, section 1(3) of which provides:
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as 'the Minister')".
The definition in the current Bill refers only to clause 6.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I assure him that I shall take the opportunity to examine it between now and the Committee stage.
I shall now deal with some of the issues that are not dealt with in the Bill. One of the most important points that has been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West and Bute and North Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Durham is that of slaughter and compensation. I repeat that I am sensitive to the problems faced by the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West. Nevertheless, if we are to have effective control of disease, it is inevitable that there will be restrictions and problems of one type or another for those in the industry. If notifiable diseases are to be


controlled, it is essential that the spread of disease agents should be prevented. The Diseases of Fish Act 1937 gives powers to control the movement of live fish and eggs. It would have been irresponsible not to use those powers to protect other farms and wild fish when we first identified whirling disease in 1981. I am aware of the disruption, anxiety and financial loss that it has caused.
Last autumn, my fish disease scientists conducted a thorough survey of fish farms that have been connected with the present outbreak. I await their report. I hope to have it shortly, and I shall take it into account when I review present policy about whirling disease. Bearing in mind the anxieties, I shall conclude my consideration as soon as possible.

Mr. Parris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and encouraged by what he says. I believe that he is sympathetic. I agree that financial loss, disruption and anxiety must be inevitable. What concerns me is that my constituent faces absolute ruin. That is what I want to avoid.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He has made direct personal representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister about the problem.
I hope that conclusions on the review of whirling disease can be reached before too long. It is significant that the National Farmers Union is conducting its own survey among fish farmers. I welcome that initiative. I hope that it can also conclude its survey soon. I welcome a contribution to my considerations from another source. It is good that the industry is co-operating and taking an initiative in that way.
Compensation is a controversial issue. There are real difficulties about introducing such a provision at this stage and my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire was right to acknowledge them. The issues are wide. It would be better to proceed with the Bill as it is and to examine compensation at another time in a wider context. There is some advantage in getting the more limited provisions that my hon. Friend has proposd on to the statute book and working so that we can then consider what steps we should take.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire said about insurance. It is becoming increasingly important in relation to animal diseases. It should be considered by the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough raised another subject which is not dealt with in the Bill and which he would like to be dealt with—control of the siting of fish farms. I understand his anxiety. Nevertheless, the subject raises wider questions, that have implications for the control of disease. It also involves much wider powers of control which are not merely related to disease. Therefore, the subject tends to go beyond the purpose of the Bill and raises other issues that must be raised in a wider context than that of disease.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred to the right of water authority inspectors to enter fish farms in the furtherance of disease control. My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is right not to try to alter the responsibility of water authorities in relation to disease. It is better to leave things as they are. I say that on the basis of present working arrangements.
It is interesting that the National Water Council has welcomed the Bill. It has many responsibilities other than the control of disease. I have been encouraged through my working experience in the past few years by the co-operation between officials and scientists in my Department and the officials of water authorities. We liaise closely. I should like to examine more closely the back-up role that I can provide with regard to fish disease through my officials and scientists. It is appropriate for the fisheries departments to provide advice. They have the necessary expertise and can provide a view that covers the whole country. I intend to foster and ensure the continuance of sensible, close and practical working co-operation between officials of the national fisheries departments and those who are working at local level in water authorities. Recent experience encourages me that it works and that it should be able to continue to work.
I am grateful for the welcome that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) gave the Bill. He has a significant interest in the sea fishing industry. Both he and the hon. Member for Durham referred to issues that are not covered by the Bill. I agree that we need proper import controls. New diseases such as bonamia which occurs in shellfish have come from the continent. There are some diseases on the continent which we hope not to see in Britain.
If I had felt that it was necessary to provide for import controls in the Bill, I should have advised my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire to do so. I have discussed with him whether we should have amended section 1 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937. On further study and using the legal advice that is available to me, it emerges that we have wide and flexible powers in that regard under the Animal Health Act 1981.
At first sight, that might not appear to be the appropriate vehicle for the powers that we want, but my advice is that the current powers should be adequate to meet any future need either to ban or to license fish or shellfish imports. Because of the interest shown in that point this morning, I shall examine the matter further between now and Committee stage and satisfy myself that the powers are adequate.

Mr. McQuarrie: My right hon. Friend referred to the powers in earlier legislation. They relate purely to shellfish. Will he determine whether there are similar powers for other fish species that may be imported?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall consider that point between now and Committee stage. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the trouble that he has taken this morning to raise detailed points. However, I was referring to the 1937 Act. Perhaps my hon. Friend would study the Animal Health Act 1981, which I believe gives adequate powers when taken with the powers contained in the 1937 Act. I mention the 1981 Act so that those with an interest in the matter will have time to refer to it before Committee stage.
The hon. Member for Durham referred to imports from Northern Ireland. That matter has caused some anxiety, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire paid some attention to it. He has rightly confined the Bill to Great Britain because Northern Ireland already has separate legislation to deal with fish diseases. To some extent, Northern Ireland is ahead of us. However, all possibilities should be covered. If any further difficulties or points arise, the Government will be happy to consider them.
I hope that I have dealt adequately not only with the Bill generally, but with its specific provisions. I have also dealt in detail not only with its specific provisions, but with matters not in the Bill because it is important to ensure its swift passage. I hope that I have managed to clarify some points and to explain the Government's attitude to the Bill, which may save time in Committee. We can then concentrate on the areas of relevance that will genuinely assist fish farming and the control of fish diseases. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that both in Committee and at later stages the Government will continue to work constructively on any necessary amendments and also provide advice to ensure a proper and swift passage for the Bill.
I end as I began by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire for introducing a Bill that makes a major step forward in the development of fish farming and the control of fish disease.

Mr. Corrie: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for replying for the Government. I especially appreciated the words uttered from the Opposition Front Bench. There is usually confrontation between the two sides of the House, and it is nice to have conciliation for a change. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) and I found when we were in Strasbourg that an assembly with no Government or Opposition tended to be more co-operative, which was very welcome.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) stressed the interests of fishermen. He is well known in the House for looking after them. As he said, more and more people are taking up rod and line and it is welcome that they will continue to have well-stocked rivers and lakes to fish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) probably knows more about salmon and animals than anyone else in the House. I bow to his superior knowledge. He raised a large number of points such as extraction rights, feeding problems and planning. If he brings up those points in Committee, we can consider

them. There is also the problem of Crown rights. The main problem faced by any private Member is time, so we must tidy the Bill as much as possible in Committee.
I thank the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I am sure that he will agree that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has done a tremendous amount of work in his constituency, as it has done elsewhere, in developing and helping fish farming. He probably has more fish farms in his constituency than any other hon. Member, except perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay). My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles), who has left the Chamber, has always given enormous support to sea fishermen, and I found it helpful to receive his support today
I have enormous sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) because I realise the problems for a fish farm when it has disease, especially whirling disease. The problem is that healthy fish can carry the spores of the disease. The last thing that we want is a farm sending out fish to other fish farmers—some perhaps only just beginning—and spreading the disease. That is why we must take a strong view about whirling disease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) raised a number of points, most of which were answered by the Minister. Clause 6 gives the Minister power to register all farms, and clause 7 sets out penalties for those who do not register or keep their bookwork up to standard.
The hon. Member for Durham also raised a number of points. The importation of fish will be considered again in Committee, but I understand that the 1981 Act covers that point thoroughly. As the Minister said, Northern Ireland has stringent disease controls. However, I know that the Scottish National Farmers Union is worried about live or dead fish entering Scotland from anywhere, although live fish are, of course, not allowed in at present.
I shall consider all the points raised in the debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in it and hope that, for the sake of the industry, the Bill will reach the statute book.

Question put and agreed to,

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Copyright (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir John Eden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill logically and naturally follows the Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment) Act 1982, which was introduced in the last Session of Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). That Act, like the Bill, had its genesis in a Green Paper, Cmnd. 8302, of July 1981, in which the Government set out in consultative form their observations on the Whitford committee report on copyright and design laws published in March 1977. Since then large numbers of people have been waiting and hoping for their comprehensive reform of copyright Law. As that has not yet been finalised, we have been forced to deal with the urgent matters in rather a piecemeal way. This is an interim measure. That it has come forward at all owes a great deal to the enthusiasm and industry of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade who may be seeking to speak on behalf of the Government.
The Green Paper expresses unqualified agreement with the Whitford committee recommendations that, in view of the growing practice of piracy of video cassettes and cinematograph material, there should be two changes in section 21 of the Copyright Act 1956.
The first change, that possession by way of trade of illicit copyright material should be added to the list of offences, was dealt with in the 1982 Act, steered through this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
The second change, that the penalties for these offences should be increased, is the subject of the Bill. The Bill seeks to amend section 21 of the Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment) Act. That Act defines offences and fixes penalties in respect of specified forms of dealings that infringe copyright. Only the provisions relating to sound recording and cinematograph films, including video, would be amended. The most notorious and recent example of this type of infringement of the law is the way in which the film "ET" became available in video cassette form even before its release in this country as a film.
The public, in that and other cases, have been prepared to pay a premium to obtain an early copy of the video cassette. Wittingly or unwittingly, they were dealing in stolen property. That property, having been stolen, was then exploited by the thief for his own gain. I put it as starkly as that. It is well that hon. Members recognise the nature of the illicit trade that is taking place and growing rapidly in our midst. Enormous sums are being earned illegally. This onward and upward process must be reversed. An attempt must be made to stop it altogether.
The existing penalties under section 21 are totally inadequate for this type of offence. They provide for a maximum fine of £25 per infringing copy, subject to an overall maximum of £50 per transaction. There is also the option of two months' imprisonment on second and subsequent offences.
From April this year, under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, the £50 maximum per transaction will increase to £200 and the two months imprisonment option will apply to first convictions. Hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that fines of such a small size are not likely to

be any deterrent to those who choose to handle the infringing material; nor do they give much encouragement to those who want to stop this rapidly growing trade.
A further weakness is that section 21 treats all copyright offences as summary offences. This makes both the large-scale manufacturer and the small-time retailer subject to the same rather limited upper level of fine. The changes proposed in the Bill are designed to distinguish between two groups of offences; some are treated as more serious offences and others as less serious.
Clause 1(3) groups as guilty of less serious offences those who sell and hire or who by way of trade exhibit or have in their possession articles which they know to be infringing copies of copyright material. Within this group would come most retailers. Under the penalty proposals that appear in the Bill, offenders in those categories would be liable to a fine not exceeding £1,000—that is the present limit of level five on the standard scale as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1982—or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two months, or to both fine and imprisonment. I emphasise that these penalties would relate to each offence—to each illegal copying of copyright material.
Secondly, the clause identifies as more serious the action of those who manufacture, import and distribute on a commercial scale articles that are known to be infringing copies of copyright material. It is in these categories that the major criminal operators are to be found. The scale of penalties has been devised to reflect more closely the magnitude of the damage done to the legitimate trade.
The Bill suggests that such offences should be triable either way. They may either be tried summarily by a magistrate, in which case the maximum penalty would be a fine of £1,000 per offence, or the magistrate can determine that the case should go to a higher court where the fine would be unlimited and the term of imprisonment would be a maximum of two years. There would be the option of both fine and imprisonment. The fine and the term of imprisonment would apply to each offence.
I emphasise that this Bill is not concerned with home copying or own use. It would not be practical to attempt to deal with that problem by a measure of this kind.
The Bill attempts to deal with the commercial pirating and counterfeiting of copyright and audio-visual material.. The House will be aware of the way in which video piracy has grown. To illustrate that I quote what I find to be a rather alarming assertion made by Mr. Peter Ayres, the chairman of the east Sussex region of the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses. He said:
The Video industry is the fastest growing sector in the country. There are approximately 20 to 25 thousand Video film retailers who sell or rent films to the public; if one excludes the Multiples, there are less than 2,000 retailers operating within the law. The remainder are involved in the sale or rental of 'counterfeit' and 'back to back' copies, thereby stealing from the copyright owners and robbing both the public and the film industry.
I am unable to vouch for Mr. Peter Ayres' figures. He does point out the magnitude of the criminal activity that is taking place and the scale of operation, which is cheating and defrauding the legitimate trade.
I am sure that the House will wish to take action to stop what is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods on an enormous scale. It is estimated that there are 2 million


video cassette recorders in private hands in the United Kingdom. They must form a tempting and substantial domestic market for the video pirates to supply.
In addition to the opportunities that exist here, there is a flourishing export trade in pirated video cassette copies of films and television programmes. I am told, for example, that "Dallas" is one of the favourites and that it is frequently recorded off-air and flown out of the country. I am told also that it is available the following morning in the souks of the Middle East. I hope that they enjoy "Dallas" but they should enjoy it legally and watch lawfully acquired copies, having paid the levies and dues that the manufacturer of the product should legally have coming his way.
It is not possible to put a precise figure on the size of the trafficking but the British Videogram Association believes that losses through piracy are currently costing legitimate distributors as much as £120 million a year in lost revenue. That is more than their entire takings in the legitimate market. To our shame, London has the unenviable reputation of being the principal centre in the world for illicit copying.
Undoubtedly, the damage that is being done, serious as it is for the legitimate trade, goes very much wider. One can only guess at the loss of revenue to the Exchequer, while the undermining of employment opportunities can be gauged by the fact that in two years about 20,000 people have found jobs in the video industry. More jobs have been created in two years in the legitimate video industry than have been created by independent television in 26 years. If the evil of piracy could be ended, the opportunity for further growth would be greatly enhanced.
It is in recognition of the serious nature of the criminal activity involved in the pirating of video film material that the Bill makes provision, in clause 1(4), for additional powers of search and seizure to be given to the police. The present procedure is that in order to obtain evidence of illegal activity the injured owner or licensee of the copyright, and not the police, must first go through civil procedures in the High Court to enable him to enter suspect premises. This is generally referred to as an Anton Piller order.
It is natural that as the scale of the illicit trade grows more menacing and inflicts more damage on the legitimate dealer, the pressure to secure an Anton Piller order increases. This is reflected in the recent comments in the chancery division, where Mr. Justice Whitford is reported as having said:
The Court of Appeal has repeatedly pointed out that Anton Piller relief should be granted only in exceptional circumstances…
Recently, a chancery judge went even further to warn that Anton Piller orders may be resisted on the ground that these matters should be dealt with in the Crown court as they are essentially criminal matters. That they certainly are.
Video pirates are engaging in criminal activity. In some instances the profit derived from the videos—possibly as high as £70 million across the board— is almost certainly being used to finance other criminal operations. Those involved are unscrupulous and nimble-footed. Legitimate manufacturers and traders, who are doing their best to maintain a good service to the public, observing the rules of the game and paying all dues and taxes, rightly demand—in my view they fully deserve it—protection against the depredations of the dealers in illicit material.
Self-policing by the industry combined with Anton Piller orders is not enough. Apart from anything else, enforcement under the Anton Piller procedure is extremely difficult, as it is possible in those circumstances only to make an order of the court against the individual, and he can so easily disappear. I have no doubt that additional police powers are needed.
I had hoped that clause 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill would provide the answer, but that does not appear to be so. Clause 9 will not apply to offences under copyright legislation even when and if the Bill becomes law because it applies only to serious arrestable offences. An arrestable offence is defined as one punishable by five years' imprisonment. As I have explained, the Bill seeks to provide a maximum period of imprisonment of not more than two years.
I understand that the Government may not be entirely happy about the relevant subsection. I shall listen most carefully to any argument that may be advanced either now or in Committee. I shall readily consider amendments to meet any reasonable points. However, I must re-emphasise that the Bill is attempting to deal with a major criminal activity, to defeat which it is vital that evidence is secured of the display, copying or possession by way of trade of pirated cassettes.
The Whitford committee, in paragraph 718, recognised that provisions for search and seizure
may be most useful".
However, it said that it was
not … prepared to make a recommendation which would involve the police in what is essentially a civil matter unless and until it is clear that this is essential".
That was in 1977 and much has happened since then. Technology has vastly facilitated the task of the pirate. New means of copying are being introduced almost daily and this explosive development will continue.
The law to deal with criminal activity needs to keep abreast of the more sophisticated techniques that are now being employed. It is essential that powers of search and seizure be made available, especially in respect of the more serious cases of video piracy.
In the Green Paper of 1981, the Government stated then that they accepted
the need for stiffer penalties against those who knowingly deal with infringing products and hopes that this will provide an effective deterrent.
I must tell the House that penalties on their own will not be enough. The evidence must first be secured. The search of premises can often produce useful information about retail outlets and sources of material. The industry itself has gone to considerable effort to combat illegal practices and it deserves to be supported by the involvement and commitment of the police. That is why the Bill seeks both severe penalties and powers for the searching of premises and the seizure of infringing material. Only a Bill that provides these will create what the Government and the industry want—an effective deterrent. That is what the Bill sets out to achieve and I commend it to the House.

Sir Paul Bryan: I declare my interest as a director of Granada Television, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Few people realise the importance of the Bill being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) today. Not one in a hundred of the growing crowd of citizens who happily hire tapes for the weekend's entertainment from the local radio


shop has the remotest idea that he or she is dealing with crooks who are bringing ruin to one of our most promising industries.
It is appropriate that my right hon. Friend, who was such a distinguished Minister with responsibility for posts and telecommunications, should be the knight who slays, or has volunteered to slay, this particularly odious dragon. I congratulate him on his initiative and on the admirable speech by which he has introduced his Bill.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for awaking the Government to the position. Within days of his appointment, on an Adjournment debate last June, I said:
The Government sit inactive in the background while an industry that should have been the saving of the film industry and a unique stimulus to artistic production is becoming a den of thieves.… What I am asking for today is not a new copyright Act, which could take five years, but an immediate increase in the penalties provided for in the 1956 Act, which could be achieved in five hours by a simple non-controversial amending Bill."—[Official Report, 11 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 577.]
We are discussing precisely such a Bill today. Under the Minister's influence, I believe that the Government will actively support it.
It is impossible to exaggerate the potential of video tape recording. In no time one household in every six has acquired a video tape recorder. It is now clear that within five years there will be as many video tape recorders as there are colour television sets today. No doubt by then the recorders will be built into the television sets.
The direct reaction of the industry to the huge and varied demands of such a host of recorder owners should be the creation of a vast, efficient and all-embracing national library of video cassettes. A supplier will continue to stock the more popular cassettes but, with computerised records, he will be able to draw on central libraries and, with no great delay, provide the customer with a tape on hire on every conceivable subject. There is simply no end to the national treasure house of music, art, entertainment, sport, instruction and education that can be built up. At the same time, modern technology will immensely improve the quality of the television picture.
We are often told of the wonders that cable will bring, but they are well over the horizon. The wonders that I have just described, if not immediate, are well in view. Development can pay for itself and provide much employment not only for those with artistic talents, but for the thousands occupied in organising and running the industry.
Until my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West introduced his Bill today, that heartening prospect was not merely in danger of being thwarted but was being thwarted. The industry is in complete disarray. Many reputable concerns have declined to have anything to do with it. Last year it was estimated that 6·7 million pre-recorded video cassettes were available in the United Kingdom market. As many as 5 million of those may have been illegal pirate copies. As my right hon. Friend said, their sale and rental turnover exceeded £100 million—50 per cent. of the estimated consumer expenditure in that area for 1982. Money which has provided profits and finance for criminals should have gone to artistes, legitimate video cassette producers,

copyright owners, investors in the film and video industries and, of course, to the Government in the form of VAT, income and corporation tax.
Has one ever heard of a major industry bogged down in such a slough of corruption? The new penalties in the Bill will not stop that corruption significantly overnight, but they will provide a real deterrent. They will encourage the honest dealers to remain honest. The police, who have almost given up this area for lost, will take action and, I hope, courage. Trade associations, such as the Video Copyright Protection Society Ltd., the British Videogram Association and the new Federation Against Copyright Theft will feel tremendously strengthened. Many major firms, already well established in other areas of distribution will enter the industry. Finally, Britain will once again command some respect in the copyright world.
At the International Tape Association's home video conference in Cannes last October, speaker after speaker pointed at Britain as the source of video piracy from which all Europe was suffering. No British speaker could deny it. Every European country could claim to impose severe penalties on copyright thieves. The United States of America had resorted to fines of up to £250,000 and five years' imprisonment, Meanwhile, in Britain the maximum fine was a derisory £50. Those evil days are nearly over. I have great hopes of the Bill and wish it well.

Mr. John Fraser: I shall be brief, because my longer contributions can best be made in Committee. Indeed, I hope that by making a short speech I will help the Bill to go into Committee all the sooner.
The hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) set out a catalogue of organisations that support the legislation, not in every detail but certainly in broad principle. To that list one can certainly add the film industry trade unions which are deeply worried, not just about their members' jobs but about the preservation of an important industry. I shall be short in the hope that the Bill will get into Committee and become the law of the land as early as possible.
In general, I give the Bill my unreserved support. One will need to look at details, such as the search powers and penalties, but this is the occasion to look not at detail, only at the principle.
I have not the slightest hesitation in agreeing with the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) that we are dealing with theft, forgery and gross criminal activity. The right hon. Gentleman said that money comes out of video piracy into others forms of crime. I suspect that the reverse is also true—that video piracy has been the method by which the proceeds of one form of crime are laundered into another, making the money less easily traceable. One need not say too much about this, but there is strong evidence that this is, as it were, the semi-legitimate end of the criminal market. It is clear that the penalties, which are trivial and wholly ineffective, need to be strengthened. As the profit from video piracy is massive, so should be the penalties. At the moment enforcement is half-hearted and wholly ineffective because there are no adequate powers. Subject to looking at the matter in detail, I am willing to support the unusual but necessary powers that the right hon. Member has introduced.
Why is the Bill so necessary? Why are stronger powers and larger penalties needed so quickly? The answer is that this particular crime not only takes away the proceeds but destroys the very thing that is being stolen.
There is a great risk that the film industry will be destroyed because of theft and piracy. That would be a tragedy, because film is the great original art form of the 20th century. In a way, people such as Cecil B. de Mille and Selznick were the Rubens and Michelangelos of the 20th century. There can be no doubt that the creations of the great film producers and directors have probably had more influence on patterns of thought, values and knowledge in the 20th century than any of the great artists and writers of earlier years. I am not saying that that is necessarily a good thing or that the values portrayed are necessarily good, but it must be beyond dispute that the great producers, directors, writers and artistes in the film industry have had such influence and that it should be recognised.
There are 2 million video cassette recorders in Britain, and the number is probably growing rapidly as equipment becomes cheaper. There is a potential audience of about 10 million for video cassette recorders. That should lead towards the rebirth of the film industry. It would be a tragedy if the very item that creates such a massive demand for film should, at the same time, destroy that industry not only in Britain but in the United States of America and Europe. We must seek to avoid that tragedy.
We should encourage the rebirth of the industry and ensure that the users' money returns to the industry. Unless that happens, we shall be left with low-budget television films. Without criticising television in any way, it would be wrong for a monopoly of that form of entertainment to lie in the hands of television companies. For all those reasons, I have no doubt that this Bill, which will protect jobs and will do something about the sweated labour in the copying industry, will be rapidly and unanimously accepted by the House.
Enforcement powers certainly need to be strengthened. In principle, I support the provisions put forward in the Bill. I am not in favour of bureaucracy. All Governments should reduce it to a minimum. However, there is a case for a simple form of registration by the video retailers. I am not suggesting an elaborate licensing system, but there is a good case for having a simple form of notification of trading activities with the local authority. An even stronger case can be made for video retail outlets keeping records of the sources of their cassettes. I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West intended to do so, but he seemed to absolve retailers from full responsibility for what has been happening. We must not do that. They are not naive; they know their job pretty well. If put to the test, they know whether they are dealing with pirate films. Therefore, they must have responsibility for ensuring that the law is properly enforced.

Sir John Eden: I very much agree with that point. Far from absolving retailers who knowingly handle illicitly copied material, the Bill would include them in the first part of the new two-tier structure of penalties and they would be liable, on summary conviction, to fines up to a maximum of £1,000 per offence. It is important to emphasise that I am not in any way proposing that they should be absolved.

Mr. Fraser: We can look at that point in Committee. I am not sure that £1,000 is not too small a fine. Parliament

talks about a maximum fine of £1,000, but those who practise in the courts know that courts seldom approach the maximum fine. On re-examination, perhaps we should have a higher penalty for illicit dealing by retailers. However, that can be examined in Committee. There is a case for a simple form of notification of trading and for keeping records. It would make enforcement easier and be very much welcomed by the Inland Revenue.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill in principle. It would be wrong for a country that has played such a prominent part in the invention and development of the cinema industry to lay the basis for its destruction. However, I am sure that the Bill's rapid passage will ensure that such a sad state of affairs will not come to pass but will instead protect the industry and give it the strength to grow.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I declare an interest as a professional broadcaster and as someone who has been involved in the film industry. I shall take up the points made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about the protection that the Bill will afford to the British film industry.
The Under-Secretary of State is reviewing the film industry. I cannot stress enough the continuing difference—albeit that the two media are merging—between film made for television and that made for the cinema. The film made for the cinema takes much longer to create. It almost inevitably has a higher budget and, whether it is shown on the cinema screen or on the smaller screens in our homes, it is more popular with audiences. The quality of a properly made feature film must be retained. That is why video pirates almost always centre on film made for cinema. That is the popular film, which can be sold easily.
I too welcome the great support for the Bill expressed not only in the House but in all sections of the industry. It is astonishing that I have not received one letter opposing the Bill. Apart from those who are involved in such illicit trade, no one could object to the provisions. The Bill is a first-aid measure. Those of us who consider the problems of the media know that there must be a major review of all copyright laws in the next five years or so. However, this matter is too urgent to be left aside and must be dealt with now.
Compared with four or five years ago, it is astonishing how quickly the problem has emerged. Only about 10 or 15 years ago the ways of copying film illicitly on to tape were clumsy and expensive. Almost always the processes were slow and there were very difficult types of duplication. Nowadays, things have changed. A few weeks ago some of us saw a firm that had 1100 VCR machines laced up to one telecine machine that was rolling the film. In that way, it made legal and perfectly honest copies.
May I illustrate how easy it would be for a person who was out to make money illicitly to set up such an operation? If he bought 100 video recorders, it might cost him about £40,000. As the hon. Member for Norwood suggested, it might be illicit money that was being laundered through the system. With those 100 video recorders and a suitable machine on which to put a film, it is not unrealistic—it is pessimistic—to suggest that the operator could copy two feature films a day. In 300 days a year, allowing for staff holidays and other benefits, he could make 60,000 copies of feature films a year. If he


sold them at a conservative price of £10, without declaring them to the Inland Revenue, he could make £600,000. That is perhaps too simple an illustration of the vast amount of money involved in this illicit trade.
As hon. Members have said, the present penalties are quite inadequate and something must be done about them. In France, for example, a first offence carries a fine of 30,000 francs and imprisonment for up to two years. In America one can be imprisoned for up to five years or be fined $250,000. Compared with that, our provisions are ludicrous. It is no wonder that the world is pointing the finger at Britain as the centre of video piracy.
Cautious words may be said in Committee about the powers of search and seizure. I, like all other hon. Members, am cautious about making further provision for such entry into private dwellings. However, in this case, it is the only way, albeit reluctantly, to curb such trade.
There is much unemployment in the legitimate industry, but not of those who make cassettes. There is growing employment in that industry, with 20,000 people employed during the past two years, and many more will be employed if we can stamp out the illicit trade. I was talking about the feature film industry, where highly qualified technicians and artists are struggling to find work. We could increase film production in Britain considerably if we stamped out that trade. The proceeds from legitimately sold video cassettes of films would then return to the right quarter.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will know that I hope that contributions can ultimately be made through the Eady levy from tapes of feature films, as they should when feature films are shown on television. The cinema audience declines every year in terms of going out to the local Odeon or ABC, but the cinema audience in people's homes is growing every year. We must adjust ourselves to the swift change in technology that has meant that, in one day, one can copy thousands of films and push them out.
The export trade must also be curbed for the sake of our reputation. One knows the story of a well-known film that was brought from the United States of America to Europe under heavy escort. The courier forgot to look after the film for about two hours. He then regained it and took it to his final destination. Within two weeks of his forgetting, there were 29,000 copies of that film circulating in Europe, all of them illegal. That shows the immensity of the trade. One must not forget that another aspect of the illicit trade, as was pointed out by Mr. Ayres of the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, is that their
greed for money has led some to rent sick horror and pornographic adult movies to young children".
That, too, must be stamped out.
I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill, which I hope will soon become law.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on his good fortune in the ballot and on bringing in this Bill, which is another important step in modernising the law on copyright. I am pleased to be a sponsor of the Bill, which as the House has heard, provides increased penalties for video piracy.
The Bill is designed to provide an effective deterrent of the type I said was necessary when I presented the Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment) Bill, which was enacted in the last Session. When I spoke during the Third Reading debate on that Bill on 9 July 1982 I said:
It is said that the profitability of pirating is such that, unless substantial penalties are introduced, there can be no effective deterrent by way of summary proceedings. My Bill is an interim measure—a valuable interim measure, if I may say so, pending new comprehensive Government legislation on copyright—to provide a real deterrent against the piratical manufacture, sale and hire of sound recordings and video recordings."—[Official Report, 9 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 589ߝ90.]
Little did I know that six months later we should be debating a Bill to provide the substantial penalties to which I referred last July. That we are doing so is due to my right hon. Friend's determination to help the film industry, to close the net around the video pirates, and to stop the film industry losing well over £100 million a year.
This is a timely Bill because, unhappily, there is still no sign of a comprehensive Government Bill to implement the recommendations of the Whitford committee, or the Government Green Paper, which was published last year. We all realise that copyright is a complex matter and that consultation with all the interested parties is essential, but I hope very much that in the next Session of this Parliament—should there be one—or early in the next parliament the Government will deal with this urgently needed reform of other aspects of copyright law, including the problem of copyright infringement resulting from home audio taping.
It is now clear that unless substantial penalties are introduced it will not be possible to stem the enormous losses to the film industry and the Exchequer through lost revenue. The increase in penalties, to which my right hon. Friend referred, when the Criminal Justice Act 1982 provisions come into force—from £200 to £1,000 maximum—is therefore welcome.
I am glad that the Bill has the wholehearted support of the Tape Manufacturers Group, which represents the interests of blank tape manufcturers in the United Kingdom. It includes some big names, such as BASF, 3M, Maxwell, Memorex, Sony and TDK. In a letter to hon. Members the group pointed out that it is the victim of piracy in the form of counterfeit blank tapes. I hope that we can consider this matter in more detail in Committee, but in the meantime I am sure that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the whole House will be grateful for the support of the Tape Manufacturers Group for the increased penalties.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that perhaps the £1,000 maximum fine would not be enough. My understanding is that that fine can be imposed for each offence, which means for each tape let for hire by way of trade or for exhibiting or where it is processed. It is therefore possible to envisage a situation in which premises are raided, where a number of infringing copies are found and where the subsequent prosecution would enable the courts to impose a fine up to a maximum of £1,000 in respect of each infringing copy. If someone is found with, for example, 100 of these tapes on the premises, the maximum fine imposed could be £100,000, if the court considered that was appropriate. Imprisonment for up to two months is an option in respect of a first offence. The fines in the Bill are substantial and appopriate. We look forward to debating them in more detail in Committee.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and his advisers have also dealt with the more grave offence of making, importing or commercially distributing pirate video tapes. I hope that those who engage in that nefarious activity will take note that such an offence can lead to their being sent for trial on indictment if the magistrates decide that a higher penalty is appropriate.
There are two parts of the operation. On summary conviction the maximum penalty is £1,000 for each infringing copy, but the magistrates have the option of sending a person for trial on indictment, which could lead to an unlimited fine or a sentence of up to two years' imprisonment for each offence. I trust that the courts will not hesitate to impose penalties that fit the crime and that, in using the power to impose an unlimited fine, they will have regard to the vast illegal profits made from video piracy. Perhaps by providing such penalties Parliament will, in the words of the Mikado,
Let the punishment fit the crime.
The use of unlimited fines will not only protect the film makers' copyright but will help to encourage the expansion of the legitimate video industry to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) referred. As he said, the industry is relatively new. It is just the type of industry that we need in Britain today. As my hon. Friend said, the industry has taken on a work force of about 20,000. I am told that it could take on several thousand more if video piracy were suppressed.
I have often asked myself, as have other hon. Members, what we can do about unemployment. What industries will take the place of the traditional industries that are in decline? Who would have thought, 50 years ago, that adjoining my constituency there would be an industry employing 60,000 people? That industry is London airport. Who would have thought, five years ago, that there would be an industry employing 20,000 people in an entirely new activity with the possibility of taking on still more? I refer, of course, to the legitimate video industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) referred to another fascinating opportunity that exists for setting up a national treasure house of visual material of all kinds, which the population can enjoy. That means more jobs in London and elsewhere. I mention London because London is considered to be the world's principal centre for illicit copying. The British Videogram Association has pointed to that and to the losses in revenue of about £120 million a year, which apparently is more than the entire takings of the legitimate industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West is right to seek approval for stiff penalties for offences that are costing the country thousands of jobs in addition to lost revenue for the film industry and the Exchequer. As he said, one of the most important parts of the Bill provides search and seizure provisions. They are in clause 4. They are the teeth of the Bill. They should command the support of Government and Parliament. Without such powers or teeth it will be possible for criminals engaged in an illegal trade worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year to evade the law and to continue their activities relatively unchecked.
After all, we are dealing not with a trivial offence but with organised crime, when the police must be able to enter premises and seize pirate tapes without first having to apply for an Anton Piller order in civil proceedings. The Anton Piller order procedure is not satisfactory, for the

reasons that my right hon. Friend has given. The House might be interested to know that, despite its unsatisfactory nature, it has been the best procedure available and has yielded some remarkable results in the six months ending 31 December 1982. During that period 120 Anton Piller orders have been served. Damages and costs awarded to date amount to £1,250,000. Damages and fees received amount to £60,000. I understand that there is a likely maximum settlement in 74 further cases of £187,000. That figure is much higher than normal because two large and established printing companies became involved through the carelessness of their staff and were co-defendants, with easily accessible assets. Most pirates have no such assets. They steal all they need and transfer the money they earn out of reach of civil seizure.
Pirate cassettes seized under civil action during that six-month period amounted to 71,000, and counterfeit inlay sleeves seized under the orders amounted to 280,000. That gives the House an idea of the extent of the operation that has been uncovered so far by the Anton Piller orders, which I believe is touching only the tip of the iceberg.
We all know, because it has been explained to us this morning, that that procedure is unsatisfactory. It is important that, when the police decide that they should bring proceedings for breach of copyright in the criminal courts, they should be able to enter the premises upon which the video tapes are stored or displayed without themselves becoming trespassers. That can be done only by giving the power to obtain a search warrant. In turn that can be obtained only when a magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary. Only in that way can the vital evidence be obtained. It is the evidence of display, copying or possession by way of trade that is needed to give the Bill real teeth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend reminded us that the House rightly takes great care only to give the police such powers when it is absolutely necessary. That matter exercises my hon. Friend's mind, my mind, my right hon. Friend's mind and the minds of many other hon. Members on both sides of the House. We do not like giving additional powers unless they are absolutely necessary when search and seizure are involved. However, in this situation, search and seizure powers must be given because of the criminal offence that is committed when a person makes, imports or distributes infringing copyright material. That activity not only is theft on a major scale, but steals jobs from those who need them badly in a legitimate industry which, but for that massive theft, could expand and prosper.
For hon. Members and outside observers who are concerned about search and seizure powers being given it is worth noting that Parliament has given powers of search without even the safeguard of a search warrant having to be obtained from a magistrate in earlier legislation dealing with the protection of badgers and the protection of birds' eggs.
Surely powers should be made available for the more serious offence of video piracy, in this case with regard to the need to obtain a search warrant.
It might be worth examining that point in a little more detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend was right to remind the House of the anxiety that we all feel before agreeing to give the police such powers. From my researches, I find that there are a vast number of Acts of Parliament where the express power to obtain a search warrant is given to police officers and a number where the


power is given to Government and local government officers. For example, trading standards officers have the right to enter premises, other than premises used only as a dwelling, without a warrant and have the right to obtain a search warrant to enter any premises under certain conditions. That power is given by section 28 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
All powers of search by warrant are statutory. There are some serious offences, such as murder, for which there is no power to apply for a search warrant, and many less serious offences for which there is such a power. Some examples might be of interest to the House. There is the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, section 51 of which deals with that matter, and where evidence of offences is obtained. Further examples are section 26 of the Theft Act 1968, which relates to stolen property; section 14 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958, dealing with circulars advertising schemes rendered unlawful by section 3 of the Act; section 19 of the Protection of Depositors Act 1963, where the search for books and papers is involved, the production of which is required by the Board of Trade; section 11 of the Coinage Act 1936 which deals with counterfeit coins and machinery; section 6 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, where an article has been or is intended to be used to destroy or damage property; section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968; section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which deals with obscene articles; section 43 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which deals with women detained for immoral purposes; section 43 of the Gaming Act 1968 dealing with illegal gaming; the Official Secrets Act 1911; the Indecent Displays (Contract) Act 1981; the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, which deals with the search for offending articles; the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which deals with the possession of controlled drugs, and the Cinematograph (Amdt) Act 1982, which deals with the use of unlicensed premises for cinematograph exhibition.
From that catalogue of statutes we can see that Parliament has provided these teeth to deal with serious criminal offences where the power of search and seizure is necessary.
When the Whitford committee reported, the problem of video piracy was a small cloud on the horizon. Today, it is a problem on a massive scale. Parliament has the duty to prevent it, and to provide not just substantial penalties but the power to search premises and seize tapes and other material without delay so that the offenders can be brought to justice.
I support the Bill strongly, and I trust that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading. It is of great importance, not just to the film industry, but to many of my constituents who make their living in the film industry at the nearby Pinewood studios. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandleson), who also represent constituencies within the borough of Hillingdon, support the Bill strongly and wish it well. They join me in wishing my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West well, and hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through the House and receive the Royal Assent before long.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on introducing the Bill. I, too, am delighted to be a sponsor. I should also like to associate myself with many of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
I am appalled at our reputation as the video piracy capital of the world. It is unfortunate that we should achieve such an unpleasant reputation. There is no doubt that it is big business these days. As my right hon. Friend explained, the clauses in the Bill will go a long away towards putting the situation right.
In clause 1 those groups that are considered to be less serious—those who sell, hire or rent by way of trade articles that they know to infringe copyright—would become liable to fines up to £1,000. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), said that he thought that £1,000 was even too low in those cases, but I expect this would be in each case. In premises, such as a video shop, I would imagine that there would be scope for many similar offences to be committed. Therefore, when action is taken against any person, the likelihood is that he would have to defend a number of cases and the fine might well be multiplied by 10 or even 100, which would have a salutary effect.
The more serious cases are the manufacture, importation and distribution of these articles. The Bill proposes that for such offences the penalties should provide for unlimited fines and up to two years' imprisonment. I am glad to see that. I believe that one of the major reasons why video piracy has grown so much in this country in recent years is that we have not addressed ourselves properly and quickly enough to the threat that has been created.
Elsewhere in Europe much more severe penalties have been introduced. We should look at what is happening elsewhere. For example, in Belgium it is possible, on conviction for counterfeiting, for up to two years' imprisonment to be imposed with a maximum fine of 80,000 francs. That is a much heavier penalty than we have. In Denmark, imprisonment is up to one year; in France it is up to two years, and business establishments may be closed, and a maximum fine of 30,000 francs for a first offender. The Federal Republic of Germany provides for maximum imprisonment of one year.
In Greece there is up to three months' imprisonment, which is much more in line with our own penalties, but I believe that in Greece the level of operation is not as great. In Ireland the approach is similar to our own, and there is a maximum fine of £100 per transaction. In Italy we go back to imprisonment for a year for counterfeiting and also for dealing in these goods. In Luxembourg there is a maximum sentence of imprisonment of up to two years; and in the Netherlands there is provision for six months. Our provisions seem entirely inadequate. I believe therefore that they are responsible in large measure for the current situation.
If we allow this type of operation to take place, it must have a direct effect on employment prospects. My hon. Friends have also mentioned the effect on the Exchequer with the loss of taxation revenue, and the other side effects.
We are being cheated in every possible direction. Taxpayers are suffering, as are those who are involved in


the entertainment industry. We are trying to persuade organisations to sponsor the arts. It would appear that we are wasting our time in trying to persuade banks and other substantial organisations to back the arts if we are not making proper provision for artistes and enterprising people who are backing the entertainment industry with their own capital to receive a proper return on their enterprise because we are allowing too many people to short-change them by cheating and swindling them out of their copyright. Unless we do something positive about the problem, it is likely to grow.
The modern criminal tends to move into any sphere where he can make money easily. There is no doubt that the criminal fraternity is taking over video piracy in a big way. We must be prepared to take vigorous and definite action to stamp out the vast gains that they are making.
In Britain, we tend to step back and not act too hastily. That means that we nearly always come in for considerable criticism when our behaviour is compared with other Governments who act vigorously and determinedly to stamp out such problems and prevent this type of operation from developing.
I hope that the Bill will have a successful Second Reading. I hope that it will be developed properly in Committee where it can be considered in some detail. I hope that it will not be too long before it becomes law so that we can properly protect those who do much to provide us with excellent entertainment and are being treated so badly now.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Jain Sproat): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on his Bill and on the splendid way in which he has presented it. One cannot present a Bill so lucidly and comprehensively unless one has done a great deal of work. I pay tribute to the tremendous amount of research that he has done in preparation for today and, I trust, the forthcoming Committee stage.
I shall make a few general comments from the Government's point of view and then deal with some of the extremely interesting and wide-ranging points that have been made. I should like to make it absolutely clear, if I had not already done so by the praise that I have showered on my right hon. Friend, that the Government warmly welcome his initiative in presenting the Bill. I am deeply worried at the rapid spread of video piracy that has taken place in Britain, especially—I do not know whether it is curious—in the London area, although other parts of the country are affected.
It is unfortunate that the somewhat glamorous title of "pirate" is used to describe the people who participate in this activity. Such people are, quite plainly, criminals. They pose a serious threat to many branches of the legitimate film and video industry. They threaten all those involved in the production of films—in both the creative and commercial spheres—either for showing or for sale as video tapes. The pirates reduce the funds available to invest in new film productions. They strike at the cinemas by seriously reducing the already low box office receipts. They threaten local dealers in video tapes who want no part of the criminal video piracy. They are a serious threat to the ability of the entertainment industry to continue to provide new material.
The Government's concern to stamp out video piracy was reflected in our support last Session for the Bill introduced in another place and so ably piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). That Bill, which became law as the Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment) Act 1982, introduced a new offence of possession by way of trade of an infringing film or record in the knowledge that it was such.
The Bill we are considering will introduce substantial increases in the penalties applicable for piracy offences, both the new offence of possession and the existing offences that include commercial manufacture, imports, distribution, sale and letting for hire. The Government accept the need for the increases to provide an effective deterrent against piracy. We welcome the way in which the Bill provides the necessary deterrent against those who act as a source of pirate material, with a threat of heavy fines and prison sentences, while retaining the flexibility to deal less severely, but still more heavily than under the present law, with other offenders.
The Bill also contains provisions to give the police powers of search and seizure for film and record piracy offences. I must make it clear that the Government accept the need for powers of that general nature, but stress that it remains for chief police officers to determine the priority that they assign to the new powers. The onus must continue to rest primarily on the industry to investigate and pursue pirate operations. I know that that is recognised by the industry and that it is expanding its vital activities, primarily through the new Federation Against Copyright Theft—known by the acronym FACT. Its initiative is most welcome and is complementary to the provisions contained in the Bill.
My colleagues in the Home Office have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West with reservations about the form of the search and seizure provisions. For example, we must bear in mind that the provisions will be overtaken by the corresponding general provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill currently being considered in Committe.
I have intimated to my right hon. Friend that it will be necessary to go over the search and seizure powers in Committee. The general principle is accepted beyond question.
The Bill is seen by the Government as an interim measure and solution to the immediate and serious problem of video piracy as opposed to the copyright problem. My right hon. and hon. Friends have raised the question of copyright reform, of which this is a part. There are many other inter-related areas of copyright for which revision of the law is needed. I assure the House that it is the Government's intention comprehensively to reform the area of copyright as soon as possible.
I shall say a word or two about copyright to assure my right hon. and hon. Friends who have raised this matter that any delay that they may perceive in the Government's respose to the Whitford report and to the Green Paper is simply occasioned by the complexity and wide range of the subject. We have to deal with films, books, textiles, phoney markings coming in from the Far East and spare parts for cars that are stamped as having been made by a reputable manufacturer but are not. It is a complicated area.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs is taking a tight grip on the problem. It is the Government's intention to bring proposals before the House as soon as


possible. The matter cannot be hastened along in view of its complexity and also the fact that the European Commission is, naturally enough, involved. It is making its own proposals. We have to make certain that our proposals dovetail, or do not unreasonably fail to dovetail, with its proposals. It was hoped that the European Commission would make its proposals by Christmas, but it did not. It is extremely unlikely to bring forward its proposals even by the spring of this year.
The Government, to some extent, are dependent upon what the European Commission wants to see happen concerning copyright. The Bill indicates, where necessary, that we are prepared to deal piecemeal with vital areas of copyright.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that the Government are determined to press ahead with copyright reform as fast as possible, but there are serious legitimate problems in the way.

Mr. John Golding: What are the problems? What is delaying matters? It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to say "Europe is dragging its feet. I expected it by Christmas." What is happening in Europe? Can he tell us why our industries are being destroyed because of inactivity in the Commission? Can he spell out the complexities? The new technologies will be obsolescent before the Minister has acted. What are the complexities? What are the difficulties?

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman has raised two extremely important points. First, he asked why Europe is dragging its feet. Secondly, he asked "What are the complexities?" I should be extremely concerned if I gave the impression that Europe was dragging its feet, or if that term was taken to mean deliberate deleteriousness.
On the contrary, the European Commission appreciates the complexities with the same vividness and acuteness as ourselves. As it began on the exercise rather later than us, it will no doubt finish its deliberations rather later than us. It is certainly not dragging its feet. It has, however, come anew to the perception that we are in the midst of a difficult problem. None the less, I hope that it will make progress as fast as it reasonably can.
It would give me a great deal of pleasure to dilate, for example, on the complexities that are facing the book industry and the problems that arise from the technologies of photocopying. It is difficult to protect the copyright of a book when there are photocopying machines that can take advantage of printed work by the operator merely pressing a button and running off hundreds of copies. This is an example of the way in which technology is advancing and how it is having an effect on the book trade. That example can be paralleled in almost every sphere that we consider.
The central problem is that our copyright law has remained unchanged for many years. On the other hand, technology is advancing extremely swiftly. It is exceptionally difficult to try to match our copyright laws with new technology, which every day advances. Only yesterday I met a delegation from The British Phonographic Industry Ltd. The delegation complained about the problems that are confronting its industry. Its members referred to a new high-speed recording deck that has been produced by the Japanese. It can reproduce at

four times the speed of anything that is now known. Who knows, tomorrow a machine may be introduced that will reproduce 10 times as fast as the current decks.
The rapid advance of technology makes it extremely difficult for any Government to draft laws which will take account of technology either not invented or barely invented. Also, I am not the Minister who deals with these issues. I do not have ministerial responsibility for dealing, for example, with the importation of cheap sweatshirts from the Far East. I am the Minister who is glad to deal with video piracy, but I am not competent to deal with sweatshirts from the Far East, and if I were to dilate too extensively on the subject I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would bring me swiftly to order. That is why I have cut short my remarks to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Mr. Golding: At one stage I thought that I had exposed a power struggle within the Conservative party. I understand the Minister's argument that changes in technology are making copying very much easier. I understand, too, that the damage caused to certain industries is becoming much greater. Advances in technology make it easier and quicker to copy. However, I cannot understand why it is impossible for the Government to step in and stop copying. If the Government are constantly to wait for technology to freeze before they take action, we shall never see them act. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and I have shared this view almost since the introduction of new technology. A point must be reached when the Government say "We shall take a decision now". They cannot justify the delay in taking action merely by drawing attention to the increasing complexities.

Mr. Sproat: Were we to be acting in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, we would be wrong. We are not acting in the way that he suggests, and we are right. We are not waiting for technology to freeze. We are seeking to draft our reform of copyright law in a way that will encompass the advances of new technology. This is not easy, but it is what we are seeking to do. In particular, my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs is now taking a tight grip on the matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West spoke about thieves. It is important for people to understand that we are now dealing with a branch of organised crime. All hon. Members who know about video piracy have heard allegations of Mafia-type criminal involvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) described how criminal money could easily be laundered through investments in video piracy. Such thieves steal the fruits of creative talent.
Almost everybody in the cinema and film world believes that Britain has an abundance of artistic talent—a reservoir of creative genius—which is matched by no other country. That is a commodity which we should exploit, in the best sense of the word, as fully as we are able to do. It is a crime against us all that the creative talents of British artists should be stolen by thieves in that way. It means that the artists do not have the return on their work through royalty payments which they deserve and which enables them to go on creating.
Not only is it theft of the fruits of creative talent but, in a straightforward way, it is theft of commercial property. I can illustrate that by taking the example of the


cinema industry. At the height of the cinema's popularity about 1·5 billion visits a year were made to the cinema. I do not have the latest figure, but I think that for last year it would be about 50 million. That is a terrifying decline in what was once a successful—and, who knows, may be again—British industry. If on top of the natural decline of the British cinema, due to who knows what factors—television is certainly one—the market is flooded with pirate video cassettes at cheap prices, an even greater burden is placed on the cinema.
British cinema did pretty well last year with that splendid film by Mr. David Puttnam "Chariots of Fire". If people go to the cinema to see that film, it is good for the cinema, but if they buy an illegal tape and watch it at home, that is a loss of trade to legitimate cinemas. That is a particular example of how the effect of video piracy spreads ever outwards and impinges on many branches of the entertainment industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend was right to say that I am currently reviewing the British film industry. I hope to be taking evidence for a few more months, perhaps until the end of March, and to reach some conclusions at the end of June. However, even before I have finished taking evidence, it is clear that if one removes the rewards of legitimate videos, one is removing money which could be reinvested in films. Thus, one is killing the goose that lays the golden egg, because legitimate film producers and investors are not getting the return on their money that they would then use to make new films. Given those examples about the commercial side, cinemas are reinvesting in new films, one can understand why organised crime has gone into the business.

Mr. Golding: What are we to make of the Minister's remark that we can understand why organised crime has become involved? Is the Minister encouraging individuals to go in for such activities?

Mr. Sproat: Indeed not. By supporting the Bill, I am encouraging unlimited fines and two years imprisonment, and thus doing the very opposite of encouraging crime. By supporting the Bill, I am doing my best to ensure that such crime will not pay. I said that I understood why people had gone into such crime because of the enormous returns that such illegal and despicable activity can bring. Indeed, the House is deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend, who pointed out that for the relatively modest investment of £40,000 someone could earn £600,000 in one year alone. That is a very conservative estimate. It is an attractive rate of return for anyone. If British Airways obtained that sort of return on its investment, I would be privatising it even more quickly. [Interruption.] I am sorry to have lost the support of the House with that remark. If the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme could wipe it from his memory, we could return immediately to the subject of video piracy. However, I am indebted to my hon. Friend for having brought those statistics to our attention. They illustrate the magnitude of the crime that we are attempting to prevent by the Bill.
I well remember when my hon Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) made his first speech on video piracy in June. He told me to look closely at what President Reagan was doing to bring in much tougher penalties. He drew attention to a Bill that had just gone or

was about to go through Congress. He pointed out that fines of about $250,000 were being imposed. He said that it was strange that it was not America, which had about four times the population of the United Kingdom, a gigantic film industry in Hollywood and a powerful cinema industry, which had produced the video pirate kings but Britain. He pointed out that London had become the world capital for piracy and that that was a shameful achievement.
I took very much to heart the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Howden. I cannot remember my exact words, but I certainly said that I would do everything I could to ensure that a Bill was introduced to emulate the severer penalties being introduced in the United States of America. He and I are therefore greatly indebted to my right hon Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West who has, in a proxy way, fulfilled my promises on that occasion.
I had a lengthy brief concerning what is done in Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United States of America. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) covered that matter and made the point about the difference in approach between the United States, with its fine of $250,000, and Greece, where the maximum fine is 10,000 drachmas. That sounds a lot of money, but it is only £75. However, that is three times more than our fine, because our maximum is only £25. However, there is great variety in the ways in which different countries approach this matter.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was rather critical about the European Commission. Although I understand the reasons for his criticism, when one considers the difference between £75 in Greece and what Britain is now doing—remembering that Greece is a member of the European Community—it is difficult to encircle everyone in one acceptable piece of European legislation. None the less, difficulties should never be an excuse for inaction. I am sure that the whole House will support that proposition. It should be a maxim for the European Commission as well as for the House of Commons
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), in a most intriguing throwaway comment, said that Cecil B. de Mille was the Rubens—or was it the Rembrandt?—of the twentieth century.

Mr. John Fraser: Both.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman combines their virtues in one. I do not disagree with him, because it is a stimulating idea.
The role of the film in informing public opinion has been very important. Without wholly agreeing with the idea of Cecil B. de Mille being the Rubens of the 20th century, the spirit that I take to have animated the hon. Gentleman's comment is the spirit that animates my consideration of the film industry. I accept its importance and that it is both an area of artistic and aesthetic expression and a legitimate area of commercial operation. We support the Bill because we accept the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks. That is why we are conducting a review of the film industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend said that video would help the rebirth of the film industry. That was


a percipient remark, and I know that my hon. Friend wishes to see the present Eady levy, which in a small way helps to fund the British film industry, supported by a levy on video cassettes. I give the undertaking that that most interesting idea will be fully considered in the review that I am undertaking.
The Eady levy, which is levied upon the box office receipts of cinemas, is then funnelled into the film industry. At one time it was believed that it provided a substantial amount of money to the film industry, but today, with a declining cinema attendance from 1·5 billion to about 50 million, a levy on a box office that is shrinking as fast as that is not the same levy as before. We must consider whether the Eady levy is the best way of funding the film industry. As part of the review, video piracy is an important consideration. If video piracy is allowed to run rampant, the chance—without saying that we will take it or not—of getting a decent levy from video cassettes would be, if not totally negated, at least decimated.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend will be only too aware that the original purpose of the Eady levy was to assist the British film industry and to ensure that more British films were seen by the cinema going public. I hope that, if my hon. Friend is seriously to consider the possibility of imposing such a levy on video tapes, he will remember that that money should be used to stimulate British film production and should not be allowed to be used more widely. It is an interesting proposal but one which raises considerable complexities. No doubt we shall be able to return to it on another occasion.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is correct. It is a matter of great complexity. I should make it absolutely clear that I have not reached a decision about such a levy. I was simply referring to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend had mentioned it and that such an idea should be considered. When we are considering it, the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge raises are exactly the type of problems we have to sort out. The Eady levy was introduced to fund the British film industry. We have to make certain that we do not find ourselves being taxed as purchasers of video films or as cinemagoers so that American film tycoons can sleep easier in their beds at night. That would be a ludicrous result of anything that we decided in the House.
There is an additional problem, although I do not wish to go into it at great length at this moment. Now that we are in the European Community, we cannot talk about British films quite as readily as once we could. We have to talk about European films. We cannot discriminate in the way we once could between what is British and what emanates from the rest of the world and from the rest of Europe. That is another matter to be examined when I consider the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend about a levy on video cassettes.
There is no matter closer to the hearts and minds, collectively, of the House of Commons than the present appalling rate of unemployment. Any industry which apparently provides a means of reducing unemployment or which provides some hope of jobs for the future is something that the House would never wish to ignore. Today gives us a good opportunity to underline the fact that the new video industry, with all its ramifications, has produced an amazing number of new jobs—20,000 in the

past two years, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We should like that trend to continue and we believe that it can continue. We should take away any bar or shackle on the legitimate development of the video industry if for no other reason than that it is a major creator of jobs. Those who are inclined to belittle the crime of video piracy would do well to remember that we are talking not only about the theft of creative talents and of commercial interests, but also about something that destroys jobs.
It would be interesting to learn how many illegitimate jobs are created by video piracy. It would also be interesting to know how much tax is lost to the Treasury. Between £100 million and £120 million of the retail value of video cassettes goes through our shops. VAT at 15 per cent. on £100 million or more amounts to a substantial sum. We are talking not only about crime, losses to the cinema, losses to creative talent and genuine investment in legitimate video, but about the destruction of jobs and clogging the development of an industry that could create new jobs. We are also talking about a loss to the taxpayer.

Mr. Golding: Does the Minister have figures for the impact on earnings by actors, musicians and entertainers generally who have different levels of earnings at different times of the year?

Mr. Sproat: That is an interesting question. I must admit that I had not looked at the problem in that way. Two areas are involved. The first involves how much money is paid to people to make video films—the actors and actresses. Reference has been made to the sweated labour in some places where pirated cassettes are manufactured.
The problem does not arise quite as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggests. Video pirate cassettes do not generate the royalties that go back to the actors and actresses in them and therefore they will be done out of any part that they may have in the retail sales—although I think that usually they are paid a fee rather than royalties or box office receipts. Let us assume that they have a box office stake. They would certainly be done out of that. None the less, we are talking about copying a film already made and counterfeiting labels. They are the two main crimes. Actors are not affected by copying. There is no question of their being paid less in wages or salary, but the legitimate royalties to the manufacturer of the film are denied.
It is interesting to speculate how actors may be done out of some benefit as a result of copying and counterfeiting but they probably do less badly than others. However, when I think about it, I realise that if a manufacturer is not earning legitimate royalties he has not the money to invest in new films. At one remove the opportunity for actors to take part in films is diminished because the revenue to finance films is removed.
In the full and certain knowledge that, short of a political cataclysm, the Bill will go into Committee, the Government are deeply indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West for introducing the Bill. We have one or two detailed reservations about the powers of search and seizure, but we have no quarrel with the argument in general. We can return to that in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Golding: This morning has been notable for the quality of legislation


before the House. Earlier we discussed the Diseases of Fish Bill, which is excellent. I know that many hon. Members will support it. To follow the Bill that we are now discussing is the Lead-Free Petrol Bill, which is another important Bill. I hope that its sponsors get a hearing. Before us now is the Copyright (Amendment) Bill. Perhaps it is fortunate for the House that we shall not reach the Social Democratic party's Bill on trade union reform because the other Bills have so much more to recommend them.
I thought that the Minister was an entirely appropriate choice to speak from the Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] No one knows more about piracy than the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that I have the support of Conservative Members on that point. The Minister reminded me of his familiarity with piracy when he referred to his privatisation measures, which we described as acts of piracy. The hon. Gentleman is an authority of state theft, taking possessions that have been created by other people, stealing them and handing them over or selling them at lower prices to others. His experience of privatisation has prepared him for seeing the moral defects in video piracy and other forms of theft. The hon. Gentleman is an expert—the appropriate Minister to deal with piracy.
It is important for the Minister to distinguish between different forms of piracy. I think that he will follow the analogy of poaching. Poaching is theft. Most of us distinguish between poaching in rivers by individuals who want to take one or two fish for their own consumption and poaching on a massive scale for pure profit. A distinction must be drawn.
We must make it clear to the country that the Bill deals not with the individual who takes a video recording for his or her own benefit, which is a technical infringement, but with the person who, on a massive scale, steals and sells to other people for profit. It is an important distinction.
I take the point that was made in the House of Commons research note. In saying that, I suppose that I can be accused of piracy. The research note makes it absolutely clear that copying for private use, while a technical infringement, is no real threat to the film industry. It is something that the Minister will have to take into account. I believe that he will find himself in some difficulty. The Bill would have found itself in difficulty if it were dealing with single copying for private use in the home. It would be difficult to persuade people not to do that, although it is an infringement of the law.
In London and elsewhere there are individuals who are prepared to copy illegally and to sell for massive profit. The problem that we face is that individuals do not believe it to be wrong to buy such tapes. We must tackle both sides of the problem.

Mr. Neil Thorne: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the public's ready acquiescence in borrowing or buying these pirated tapes. Does he acknowledge that it is part of the black economy and that the public now are much more inclined to participate when they believe that they can obtain goods on the side that they think will be less expensive? That is one of the evils of which we have to rid society. The readiness of people to accept short-term benefits from video piracy ignores the fact that it could lead to the collapse of the entire entertainment industry and their enjoyment.

Mr. Golding: I do not believe that the nation's moral fibre is weakening. People among whom I grew up often had goods that fell off the back of a lorry. The purchase of stolen goods has long been a great problem, particularly when people do not believe that it is wrong to purchase such goods. It is not new, but it is a real problem to persuade people that it is as reprehensible for them to purchase stolen goods as it is to steal them. We have a problem because people often do not realise that stealing has taken place. They do not understand that if they buy a video tape for £2 to £5 cheaper than elsewhere, that is because someone has stolen it and can therefore sell it more cheaply. One has to say to people, "You are putting other people's livelihoods at risk because you are purchasing stolen goods."
It is a widespread problem. I have come across it not just in the pirating of video tapes. I understand now that there is a problem for computer manufacturers because computer tapes are being copied. The computer industry is being undermined by the pirating of tapes. The problem is very substantial.
I wish to protest to the Minister about his slackness. The hon. Gentleman said that difficulties should not be a barrier, but his record has not been good. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) in a written question under the heading,
Films and Video Tapes (Copyright)",
asked the Minister for Trade
if he will introduce legislation to provide for criminal penalties for those persons who copy without authority film of video tapes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: "—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order.

Mr. Golding: For a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that I had transgressed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I just heard the word, and—

Mr. Golding: It is a word that causes everyone shock and horror.
The Official Report continues:
Mr. Sproat: It is a criminal offence under section 21(1)(a) of the Copyright Act 1956 to make for sale or hire an unauthorised copy of a copyright film or video tape in the knowledge that it infringes copyright."—[Official Report, 4 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 1.]
What an answer!
We have listened to the Minister at the Dispatch Box today telling us that this is an enormous problem with which it is very difficult to cope, impeded as we are by Europe. However, we face all these complex technical problems. What is his answer to the question? I draw attention to the fact that the Minister was asked to make a statement. He made no statement at all. With a flick of his hand, he said that the problem was dealt with in 1956.
I despaired when I heard the hon. Gentleman say that difficulty should not be a barrier, as it struck me that difficulty for him is a great big pit. It is apparent that he had decided to do nothing at all.
We must congratulate the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), not the Minister. It is a disgrace that it should have been left to the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North (Mr. Whitehead), to introduce the legislation. I wonder whether


in all the other problems and legislation of which the Minister has spoken this morning, we shall have to rely on private Members tackling them. Will we have to wait for the private Members' ballot next year to find others with the initiative of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West before the Government wake up and deal with these problems?
I could speak for a long time on the Government's failures in this regard. I could express even greater indignation. I experienced dismay when the Minister this morning blamed everyone but himself for the inactivity.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) wishes to introduce his important Bill on lead-free petrol. Therefore, I shall conclude now.
This is an excellent Bill. I hope that it has a fair wind in the House of Commons. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West on having the initiative that the Government so sadly lack.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

Orders of the Day — Lead-Free Petrol Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2 pm

Sir Marcus Kimball: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the other Bills that we have considered today, the House has been treated to the courtesy of an explanatory memorandum. We are about to consider a highly scientific Bill that has no explanatory memorandum.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) does not wish to mislead the House but financial help with drafting is available for private Member's Bills for hon. Members who have drawn the first 12 places in the ballot. The hon. Member for Fife, Central has drawn No. 9. As there is extra assistance, it seems rather unfair to the House to present a highly scientific Bill that deals with the percentage of milligrammes of lead in petrol without providing hon. Members such as myself who take an interest in the matter, with the benefit of an explanatory memorandum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): There is no requirement for an hon. Member who promotes a Bill to provide an explanatory memorandum. It is frequently not provided; sometimes it is. For example, there was no explanatory memorandum to the Copyright (Amendment) Bill to which the House has just given a Second Reading.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Perhaps I may try to explain the origins of the Bill, after that silly interlude. I hope that it is given a Second Reading, if only because it has all-party support. Almost every party in the House—Conservative, Liberal, SNP and Labour—is represented by the sponsors of the Bill. Even more striking is the massive public support that exists for it.
My party is committed, when we form a Government after the next general election, to introduce a Bill that gets rid of lead in petrol. It is one of the most dangerous polluting forces in Britain. There is increasing public awareness of the way in which modern society is being polluted in all kinds of ways. There is evidence to suggest that we are being polluted to death in stages through our water reserves, whether they be rivers, lakes or oceans. Lead in petrol is no less important. That is why I am promoting the Bill.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) based his trite complaint about the absence of an explanatory memorandum on the fact that financial help to produce private Members' Bills is offered to hon. Members. That help amounts to the magnificent sum of £200. That would hardly pay for the tea lady who is employed while one prepares a Bill. That is one of the absurdities of the House. We pretend that the aid is a revolutionary innovation. It may be that £200 is better than nothing, but it is worse than useless when it comes to producing a Bill of this kind.
The Minister may pick holes in the drafting of the Bill, but the public want a Bill of this type and they want it quickly. The damage that is being done, especially to our children, by lead in petrol is no longer tolerable. The oil


companies and others use all types of excuses for not removing lead from petrol. They say that petrol would cost an extra 3p a gallon, or that unacceptable sums of money would have to be invested in refineries. Those arguments are irrelevant, as oil companies increase the price of petrol week by week. It ill-behoves them to say that the removal of lead from petrol will put 3p on the price of a gallon of petrol. Moreover, there is no objectivity in those figures. They lack credibility.
The advice that I have received shows that lead can be eliminated from petrol within the time scale that I have laid down in the Bill without any serious technical problems for the oil companies. The public are prepared to pay an additional few pence on a gallon of petrol if it will protect our children's health—and that is what is at stake. There is abundant and increasing evidence that the damage done to our children's health and mental stability is considerable.
I must point out that when I drafted the Bill I did not take that £200. We are repeatedly asked by the Government to curtail public expenditure, so I was a patriotic supporter—after all, I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee—and saved £200 by consulting people who have more knowledge of the subject than all the technical parliamentary advisers and draftsmen. I first consulted CALIP—the Campaign Against Lead in Petrol—and the Conservation Society because they had been at this game far longer than Mr Des Wilson and CLEAR—the Campaign for Lead Free Air. They have more knowledge of the subject, even though Mr Wilson is a professional publicist. I did not take too much notice of what Mr Wilson was doing, although the information that he provided was valuable.
The technical expertise of CALIP and the Conservation Society has been invaluable. I must say in deference to them that the penalty clause was my brainchild—it had nothing to do with them—and I make no apology for it. The figures could be increased or decreased, but it is evident that, should the oil companies challenge any Government decision on the matter or attempt to thwart the will of the House in wanting to get rid of the pollutant, the House must lay down in clear and firm language that punitive penalties would be imposed.
It is an easy matter for the Minister and his civil servants to tear to pieces a Bill provided by an ordinary Back-Bencher such as myself. I ask the Minister seriously to consider allowing the Bill a Second Reading so that it can move into Committee. Once there, the Government can produce their arguments at great length on whether the Bill should be allowed to proceed, even if it be in a considerably amended form. I hope that the Government accept that the principle of getting rid of lead in petrol should be supported by the House as a whole. We must not, as I suspect the Government will, hide behind the EC and the need for conformity in these matters. There is no conformity now. It is important to instil into our people the point that all Governments and parties regard the matter to be of such supreme urgency that it cannot be delayed much longer.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The Department of Transport usually deals with these matters. I am having a great deal of correspondence with the Department, and its attitude causes me concern. The Minister, I think, represents a

Department that may be sympathetic to the aims of the Bill. It is the Department of Transport that will put the mockers on the Bill.

Mr. Hamilton: The problem is that many Government Departments are involved. There are the Departments of Transport, Environment and, Health and Social Security, and the Scottish and Welsh Offices. If the Government have the will to remove lead from petrol it could be accomplished in two years.
It is easy to ask "Why pick on lead in petrol? There is lead in water pipes. All kinds of pollutants are in the atmosphere." It is correct to say that this has been a longstanding problem, not only with lead but other pollutants. Lead has been poisoning people for at least the past 2,000 years.
It is only recently that we have realised that lead is an avoidable pollutant in petrol. It is not difficult in practical terms to get rid of it. Cars are being manufactured in Britain today with engines that run on lead-free petrol. Those cars are being exported. There is no technical difficulty in that sense. The problem of lead in petrol did not come into focus until 1921 when it was discovered that one of its compounds would, when added to petrol, stop engines knocking. That led to the commercial introduction of lead in petrol in 1923. Corrosive lead scavenge machines followed soon after that. Motorists, including myself, who were blinded by their love for their cars, had no hesitation in drawing power from poison. That is what we are doing. Every motorist who goes on the roads is poisoning the atmosphere and adversely affecting the lives of his children.

Mr. Tim Brinton: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has stated this matter very carefully. It would be helpful to the House, in this highly scientific matter, if he would tell us how much lead we have in our bodies from petrol proportionate to other sources.

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot answer that. I am not technically equipped to deal with that question. This is the kind of diversionary argument that is used by those who may have commercial interests. Whatever the technical arguments may be and however much it is said that lead can be produced in the body by other means, that is no reason for saying that we should leave everything alone and not tackle the problem. We must tackle this problem and it can be solved and eliminated in two years. It can be done and it should be done. We should not seek to divert attention from this problem by directing attention to other parts of the same problem.
After the second world war the growth of motor car usage meant that more and more lead was polluting the atmosphere. By 1978 world lead production was valued at $2,400 million a year, giving it an economic importance subordinate only to aluminium and copper among non-ferrous metals. World emission of fine lead particles totals about 4 million tonnes a year. Every year 8,000 tonnes of these particles are emitted to the atmosphere in Britain. The amount of poisonous organo-lead in petrol has been progressively reduced since 1973.
All Governments have recognised that it was important to reduce the amount of lead in petrol in stages. It was first done voluntarily by the oil companies and then by Government order. I think that I am right in saying that Government orders have been introduced by successive


Governments to control pollution by food, water, paint or cosmetics in addition to petrol. At present the number of milligrammes per litre of petrol that is permitted in Britain is 40. I am not aware of any plans for an immediate reduction of that proportion. The present West German level is 15 milligrammes per litre. That shows how far we have yet to go. Incidentally, all Ford motor cars built in West Germany can run on low-lead petrol. If that can be achieved in Germany, it can be achieved here.
This issue has been raised in the newspapers over many years and the record of successive Governments has not been as reputable or as frank and honest as it might have been. There has been a good deal of pressure on them from various interested outside bodies and there has been a good deal of vacillation for various reasons. Due credit should be given to the pressure groups outside or maintaining pressure on the Governments of the day. When commentators speak with cynicism about the role of Parliament we should pay ourselves a tribute occasionally by saying that we have regard to the legitimate pressures put on us by interested outside parties. Indeed, we should have regard to them. We become used to sorting out the various pressures, and I believe that the organisations that have made representations to hon. Members on this issue are some of the more respectable, responsible and knowledgeable organisations. We should have regard to what they are saying. I shall quote from a document that was produced by New Society on 15 April 1982, which referred to a debate that took place in the House some years ago. The document states:
Meanwhile Whitehall, too, was waking up to the danger of lead in the environment. In December 1971, the chief medical officer of the DHSS wrote to all health officers drawing their attention to 'possible environmental hazards associated with lead.' The same year saw the oil companies enter into voluntary agreements to reduce the lead content of fuel by two steps, in 1973 and 1974.
Poisonings from a lead smelter at Avonmouth grabbed the headlines in 1972. But far more important, because it pointed a finger at the hazard to health of ubiquitous road traffic, was the controversy surrounding the opening of Spaghetti junction on the M5 motorway in Birmingham.
Robert Stephens, reader in organic chemistry at Birmingham University recalls:
There was concern at the opening of the junction. I noticed it in the press and the response of officials did not satisfy me.
He then goes on to talk about the research into the problem. The article continues:
Stephens says the low level of public awareness of the poison in petrol at that time emerged from an opinion poll conducted by the Birmingham students.
It is well known that at that junction the mass of traffic emitting lead from their exhausts is creating a great problem for the children there. I do not think that hon. Members doubt the danger created by the problem, particularly to our young children, although not exclusively so. Therefore, the Government should take the opportunity of declaring their intentions in this parliamentary Session. Action can be taken in this Session if the will is there. I shall give the Minister a few minutes to tell us what the Government's views are on the matter.
Clause 1 makes it an offence to manufacture, sell or use petrol containing lead after a specified period, which is laid down in the Bill. The penalties are fairly swingeing although not swingeing in terms of the capital owned by the oil companies. If the petrol companies produce, sell or manufacture petrol that contains lead they shall be fined

up to £50,000 per day during the first week of infringement, £100,000 per day for the next whole calendar month and £250,000 per day for each day after the first five weeks. That is deliberately put in those terms to tell the oil companies that Parliament wills that they produce lead-free petrol. If they do not, they will be put out of business if necessary.
The expression used in clause 2(2) of "properly formulated petrol" is there on the advice of my outside advisers. It is defined as:
petrol of an appropriate octane level and containing tricresyl phosphate for the protection of exhaust valve seats where necessary.
That is to protect existing motorists in the transitional period and I understand that it will meet the problems.
Representations have been made to me by Octel, an organisation in Cheshire which produces the lead product. I understand the misgivings of the workers there, but I have told them that although I would be quite happy to see them they would be better advised to see the national executive committee of the Labour party because after the next election the Labour Government will introduce a Bill to get rid of lead in petrol.
Let me quote another extract from the article in New Society to show the menace of the product that is being produced. I quote:
Derek Bryces-Smith, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Reading, remembers being alerted to the extraordinary toxicity of tetraethyl lead in 1954"—
that is 27 or 28 years ago—
'I wanted some for an experiment, but I found I couldn't buy any by the usual means. So I got in touch with the makers, Associated Ethyl'"—
that is now Octel, in Cheshire—
'Evidently my letter caused some embarrassment because they sent someone to inspect me and my laboratory. The man who came explained that a drop of the stuff on my hand would send me mad. If any was spilt on the floor, the boards would have to be destroyed. He further explained that if there was such an accident, the newspapers would be bound to take an interest and give bad publicity to the lead in petrol. They did let me have some tetraethyl lead, but it stuck in my mind that they had a pretty bad conscience about their industrial process. It was also clear that they were anxious to keep a low profile'.
I put that on record because whether the House debates lead in petrol, the danger of excessive cigarette smoking or the danger of alcohol abuse, and whether the brewers, oil companies or cigarette manufacturers are involved, it is always said that too much money would be involved and that many people would be thrown out of work. Those are powerful arguments, but there are more powerful arguments on the other side. Day by day, and week by week the health and even the lives of children and adults are being jeopardised by such manufacturers.
The House must have the courage to say enough is enough. It must say, "We shall do our best to protect your jobs, but the health of our people is more important than that." In the few minutes remaining, I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly where the Government stand.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I wish to speak, because I must put some balance into the argument presented by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Of course there is a problem and some controversy here. If lead in petrol is proved to emanate from exhausts in large degree, it may have a strong effect on people in this country, not least on children. Of course, every hon. Member is extremely worried about that.
However, in commending his Bill to the House, the hon. Gentleman failed to produce any evidence to show the amount of lead pollution in car exhaust fumes. He spoke about Octel. Octel claims that the proportion of lead in our bodies that results from the exhaust fumes of motor cars amounts to 8 per cent. of the total amount of lead produced in our bodies. Therefore, we are worrying about 8 per cent. From its research, it would seem—the hon. Gentleman has not contradicted it—that most of the lead pollution in our bodies comes from the earth and from the vegetables that we eat. If money is to be spent, it could be more usefully spent on trying to cut down the amount of lead in our bodies by researching into that area.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Where does the lead in the vegetables come from?

Mr. Brinton: It comes from the earth and is part of man's natural evolution. We all have lead in our bodies. I know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central is sincere, but he has raised a scare story that worries many of those who do not think about it. However, the amount of lead produced from exhausts of motor cars is small compared with other sources of lead.
The other fact that concerns me about this proposal is that we already know that the Government are carrying out a graded reduction of lead in petrol. They are reducing the maximum lead content from 0.4g per litre to 0.15g per litre—a 62 per cent. reduction—by the end of 1985, the date by which the hon. Member for Fife, Central wishes to see no lead in petrol. If we follow the hon. Gentleman's course, he will put many of his brother workers out of work because the British motor car industry would have to be extensively retooled. [HON. MEMBERS: "More jobs."] That may produce more jobs—

Mr. Martin Stevens: Is my hon. Friend—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 28 January.

Orders of the Day — TRADE UNION DEMOCRACY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 January.

Orders of the Day — CHILD CARE (ACCESS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — SALMON FISHERIES PROTECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 January.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the permission of the House, I shall put together the questions on the motions.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE

Ordered,
That Mr. Gregor MacKenzie be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Dick Douglas be added to the Committee.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT

That Mr. Keith Wickenden be discharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. Peter Lloyd be added to the Committee.

Orders of the Day — ENERGY

That Mr. David Stoddart be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. John Spellar be added to the Committee.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AFFAIRS

That Mr. Eric Deakins be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. Michael Welsh be added to the Committee.

Orders of the Day — WELSH AFFAIRS

That Mr. Joan Evans be discharged from the Committee on Welsh Affairs and Mr. Gareth Wardell be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Thornton View Hospital, Bradford

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Thomas Torney: I was called by BBC local radio this morning to say something about this Adjournment debate that I have secured. The BBC asked me why I did not wish to see the closure of Thornton View hospital, in my constituency. I said that the first reason was that I disagreed with the closure. The second important reason was that many of my loyal constituents have protested to me that the hospital should not close. They listed various reasons for the prevention of the closure, about which I hope to inform the Minister during my short speech.
The decision to close Thornton View hospital was undoubtedly taken solely because of the need to cut expenditure. That decision is dictated by the calculated decision of the Government not to provide sufficient money to the regional health authority, which in turn does not provide sufficient money to the district health authority properly to fulfil its duties to those members of the community least able to fend for themselves. I do not think that anyone in the House would deny that such people cannot fend for themselves, and that they are right to expect the Government, the Opposition and everyone in control to succour them so that they may enjoy the evening of their lives as much as it is possible for them to do so.
At present there are 70 patients in Thornton View hospital, whose bed complement is 82. Patients are in their 70s and 80s with some in their 90s. Seventy-three per cent.—almost three quarters—of all elderly people in institutional care in the city of Bradford have no living relations. They are entirely dependent on the type of service that the community, or the Government, can provide for them.
Last Sunday I visited the hospital and saw the patients and the staff. The patients are frail, elderly and confused. Some are suffering from organic brain disorders. Many patients have no living relations. The hospital is therefore home to them, and the staff of the hospital are their family.
I was impressed by the tremendous dedication of the staff. The hospital itself, though an old, solid building, is bright and cheerful inside with amenities to try to make it home for those unfortunate folk. The staff, by the happy and cheerful way they went about their work, treated the people more like their own elderly relatives than just institutionalised patients. I was tremendously impressed by the atmosphere in every ward and room, by the care, the homeliness and the constant skilled attention that was given to the patients. I am convinced that they cannot possibly be continued by moving those unfortunate people to three or four other hospitals.
We cannot deny that money is being saved, but the cost can be reckoned only in terms of human suffering and possibly death. On behalf of a section of Bradford people who are least able to defend themselves, many of whom are without relatives to fight for them, I am thankful that many of my constituents are not like the Government—without compassion. Many of my constituents have rallied round and demanded that Thornton View should remain to administer its special kind of loving care to the people who need it.
Hospitals in my constituency are responsible for two-thirds of Bradford's geriatric beds. Therefore, I feel that I have a special responsibility to geriatric patients throughout Bradford. The Northern View hospital, to which some of Thornton View's patients will be moved if the closure proceeds, is recognised by all concerned—the local authority, the area health authority and so on—as a slum and a fire trap. We need more, not less, money, because the real alternative to the closure of Thornton View is to demolish Northern View and build a new geriatric hospital on the site. If that were proposed to be done, we would have no complaint.
About 700 people in Bradford are elderly before their time due to dietary deficiencies when they were young and the climatic conditions. In much the same way as people of 85 and over, they suffer from pre-senile dementia. In most inner cities they have greater frailty than elderly people living in the posh outer suburbs. Bradford probably has more Asian immigrants than any other city in the United Kingdom. They bring with them health problems which, in particular, affect the aged and people who suffer from pre-senile dementia.
For the reasons that I have described, Thornton View should not be closed. More, not less, money should be poured into the health services in Bradford. From an economic view, it is not sound policy to close the hospital. The saving, at great human cost, is minimal. The usual practice, when considering closing a hospital, is to take into account the main saving to the authority concerned. A capital saving is usually involved. Saving in wages and salaries is secondary. At Thornton View the saving is secondary and minimal because the authority does not own the building. The building belongs to the Bradford metropolitan district council. The only saving will be in staff wages and a few incidentals. For that, helpless, sick and elderly folk will undergo an upheaval.
I am not convinced that they will be as happy, settled or well cared for as they are now if they are moved. They are not to be moved to one place. These 70 elderly, confused and sick people are to be split between three or four places. At least one of the places in my constituency is not a fit place to take them.
A radio interviewer put it to me that it would be better to close the hospital and use the money saved to improve facilities for the people involved. But some are to be moved to a slum, which is unsafe because of the fire risk.
The Bradford metropolitan district council has a good record for its help for the elderly. It has had an excellent relationship with the district health authority in the past, but since reorganisation last April that relationship has deteriorated, with adverse consequences for the elderly.
The Thorton View building is shared between Bradford metropolitan council and the health authority. The costs of running it are also shared. Closure will mean a loss to Bradford metropolitan social services of about £80,000 to £100,000. That is at a time when the Government are severely restricting local authority spending. The repercussions of the closure of Thornton View are almost certain to be further restrictions of local government social services for elderly persons. I refer to part III of the Act concerning accommodation for elderly persons. The health authority does not own the hospital. It uses it. It belongs to the Bradford metropolitan council.
The Bradford metropolitan council is a hung council. The Liberals and the Social Democratic party hold the balance. The rest of the membership of the council is


almost equal, Labour and Conservative. The council unanimously supported a resolution against closure of the hospital. All through the region revenue to district health authorities is limited. Bradford is pressing for help from the region. The region is considering that, but we must bear in mind that £4·9 million of the money that is allocated to the region is used in connection with the new hospital in Leeds, which is sucking away most of the regional funds. If ever there was a need for ministerial intervention with more money, it is in the case that I am pleading today.
I remind the Minister that the Prime Minister said at the Tory Party conference last year that the
Health Service is safe with us".
I wonder whether she meant that the private health service was safe with the Government, because the Health Service in Bradford does not seem to be safe. I plead and beg for an intervention to stop the closure of the Thornton View hospital.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) has turned what was an important constituency Adjournment debate into an untrue political attack on the Government. He talked about compassion. He should remember that it is easy to mouth compassion, as he has done, but the fact is that, far from cutting expenditure on the Health Service, the Government have, as he knows full well, increased it in real terms by over 5 per cent. It was the Government whom he supported who cut expenditure on the National Health Service.
Having demolished the political part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I shall refer now to the important part and the factual things that he mentioned. As he said, Thornton View hospital is at Clayton, in his constituency. I know that he is taking a deep interest in it and that he visited it last Sunday. I want to try to clarify some of the issues that he has raised because I know that there has been a great deal of local concern at the proposals by Bradford health authority to close not only Thornton View but Shipley hospital. The closure of any hospital arouses strong feelings and it is important, therefore, when such a course of action is proposed, that all aspects should be fully and widely discussed, considered and assessed.
As I mentioned, the future of Shipley hospital is also currently being discussed. I must make it quite clear, as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) when we debated the future of Shipley hospital on 15 December, that neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been asked at this stage to take any final decision about the future of either Thornton View hospital or Shipley hospital. Bradford health authority is consulting widely on proposals it has put forward to enable it to live within its means in future. The future of these two hospitals forms a part of a package of proposals that the health authority has prepared for this purpose.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, a clear procedure is laid down in this sort of case and I can do no better than refer him to what I said in columns 457ߝ462 of Hansard, on 15 December 1982, in reply to a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.
Let me say something about the financial position that the Bradford health authority faces. Its revenue allocation in the current financial year is £49 million. While the DHA

is assessed by the RHA still to be some 7 per cent. below its RAWP target, the current year's allocation represents a growth in real terms of about 1·5 per cent. over 1981ߝ82. It is wrong, therefore, to speak of cuts in the level of resources and of the National Health Service "being starved of funds". Of course health authorities are required to contain their expenditure within the notified cash limits. If they fail to do this in any year they naturally erode their financial position for future years. The need, therefore, to maintain strict controls on expenditure is paramount, but it is well accepted throughout the NHS.
Last autumn the Bradford DHA concluded that if it were to fund all the proposals in its operational plan in full and meet its other commitments, there would be an anticipated shortfall of income against recurring expenditure in 1983ߝ84 of about £1 million. In the light of this potential deficit, the authority has been reviewing the proposals in its operational plan as well as the current levels of provision being supported in the district.
If the closure of Thornton View hospital went ahead it is estimated that a net saving of about £500,000 would result. The remaining gap between income and expenditure would be bridged by a whole range of economies throughout the district in such areas as staffing levels, energy conservation and so on. This is the essential background against which the Bradford health authority's proposals must be judged.
I should like now to deal with the proposals in relation to Thornton View. The hospital was built between 1853 and 1872 as a Poor Law institution and is about three miles from Bradford city centre. Access to the hospital is difficult. The hospital is roughly half a mile from the nearest public transport and is on a very steep hill at the end of an unadopted road, which is in a poor state of repair. A special visitors' bus service is provided three times weekly.
The hospital, which is owned by Bradford metropolitan council, combines local authority social services part III accommodation with 82 long-stay geriatric beds in four wards. Considerable effort, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been made to provide an acceptable environment for the patients but there are still shortcomings. Day space on the wards and sanitary facilities are below standard. These problems can be rectified only through substantial capital expenditure. In the view of the district management team, Thornton View hospital has the poorest geriatric patient accommodation in Bradford.
The overall number of geriatric beds currently available in the district is 556. On a population basis this is roughly equal to the estimated bed requirement determined by the regional health authority. However, the occupancy rates of these beds suggest that the present number of beds exceeds the actual need. At Thornton View, there are currently 70 patients, over half of whom have been there for 12 months or less. An analysis of their home addresses shows that only 14 of these come from the immediate vicinity.
What alternative provision is envisaged for the patients transferred from Thornton View? This would be at one of three sites. The first is Bierley Hall, which was opened in 1968 as a purpose-built geriatric unit. It provides the main rehabilitation facilities for the Bradford geriatric population as well as a 62-place geriatric day hospital. In recent years, because of changes in clinical management and an increase in assessment facilities at St. Luke's hospital, the occupancy rate of the unit has fallen. In 1981


the average daily number of beds occupied was 149 out of a total of 192. It is considered that a 90 per cent. occupancy is achievable without a significant increase in revenue costs or a reduction in the quality of care. This would effectively create an additional 24 beds.
The second location is at Leeds road hospital. Here a 23-bed geriatric ward was withdrawn from service by Bradford area health authority in 1980 when alternative accommodation at St. Luke's became available. This ward would require limited expenditure to bring it back into use. The third site is at St. Luke's hospital itself.
The transfer of the psychogeriatric assessment beds to Lynfield Mount, which should create a further 13 geriatric beds, is itself the subject of the change-of-use consultation procedure.
As the hon. Member has said, the movement of geriatric patients can have a profound effect both on patients' morale and on their health. There have been some examples in the past of geriatric patients having died soon after being transferred between hospitals, but there have also been far, far more instances where moves have had no serious effect.

Mr. Torney: Has the Minister taken into account the fact that Northern View, where some of these patients will be transferred, is recognised as a slum? It is much worse than Thornton View hospital and is also a fire risk. Remember that some of these unfortunate geriatric people will be taken there.

Mr. Finsberg: What I said to the hon. Gentleman was that that was the opinion of the district management team—doctors, nurses and administrators; the people who hae daily contact with all these problems. That is their view.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the patients are going to a slum hospital. He will have heard me name the three hospitals and I do not think that he would say that any of them is a slum hospital.

Mr. Torney: But Northern View is.

Mr. Finsberg: The three places where the patients would be going are the places that I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman has had an invitation from the DHA to discuss the matter in detail. Had he had a chance to take up the invitation he would have known that the allegation that he made that the patients were to go to a slum hospital would not have chimed with the facts. I hope that I have at least reassured him on that point without expressing any opinion at all on the property that he mentioned. I am not prepared to express opinions without having seen the place and formed as sensible an opinion as I can, having done that.
I referred to the movement of patients and the possibility of death resulting from their being moved. If one takes the Toxteth disturbances in 1981, over 100 geriatric patients were moved at 1 o'clock in the morning under somewhat unpleasant circumstances without any apparent long-term problems. The movement of patients, particularly geriatric patients, is unsettling, but in the case of the patients at Thornton View, the better quality of the alternative facilities is an importat consideration.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue and for about 85 per cent. of the remarks that he made. I want to assure him very firmly that, should this matter be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at some time in the future for a final decision—the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a long process before that—this debate will be of considerable assistance in helping us to reach our decision. We shall reach our decision on the basis of the facts and nothing else.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.